yt 



PETER RAMUS 

AND THE 

EDUCATIONAL REFORMATION OF THE 
SIXTEENTH CENTURY 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO 
DALIES • SAN FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 

TORONTO 



PETER RAMUS 



AND THE 



EDUCATIONAL REFORMATION 



OF THE 



SIXTEENTH CENTURY 



BY 

FRANK PIERREPONT GRAVES 

(Ph.D., Columbia) 

professor of the history of education 
in the ohio state university 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1912 

A/i rights reserved 



v^f^^^ 



Copyright, 1912, 
Bv THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 



Set up and electrotyped. Published September, 1913. 



t C!.A3^0441 



TO 
PAUL MONROE 

WHO HAS GIVEN TO THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION 

ITS PRESENT HIGH STATUS 

IN AMERICA 



PREFACE 

It is difficult to understand why Ramus has 
been so much neglected by writers upon the six- 
teenth century. He was probably the foremost 
French philosopher of his century, and he stands 
well among the great educators, effective orators, 
and lofty characters of the world's history. In 
many respects he seems a striking forerunner of 
modern times. Alcuin, Abelard, Petrarch, Valla, 
Erasmus, Luther, Ramus, and Descartes are mile- 
stones that mark the pathway of progress from 
medievalism. Yet in few general histories do 
the life and work of this remarkable reformer 
figure in any detail. In treatises written in Eng- 
lish he is barely mentioned, and while there have 
been for half a century some extended accounts 
of his career by French writers, and of late Ger- 
man scholars have been m.aking careful contribu- 
tions to elucidate the various phases of his work, 
there scarcely exists anywhere a complete account 
of his achievements that includes an analysis of 
his works. 

vU 



ynn preface 

Yet many pages are devoted in histories of 
education to such contemporaries of Ramus in 
France as Rabelais and Montaigne. While these 
men were of great importance in the develop- 
ment of literature and educational theory, they 
seem to have had comparatively little effect upon 
the schools or the movements of the times. 
Ramus, on the other hand, was a practical re- 
former, a writer of textbooks, the founder of 
a new and influential point of view in subject 
matter and method, a popular and successful 
teacher, and an active correspondent and per- 
sonal acquaintance of the educational leaders of 
his day in all countries. No man more fully 
embodies the spirit of this age of reconstruction, 
the storm and stress period of the sixteenth 
century. Aside from the account of his own 
contributions to education and theology, the life 
and work of Ramus are well worth studying for 
the light they shed upon such a critical epoch in 
history. 

In presenting this account of Ramus, I wish to 
tender my thanks to Professor Frederic Ernest 
Farrington, who first called my attention to the 
importance of the subject, to Professor Paul Mon- 
roe, who has critically reviewed the whole work, 
and to Professor David E. Smith, who furnished 
me with written suggestions concerning my treat- 



PREFACE ix 

ment of Ramus as a mathematician. I am also 
indebted to Miss Betty Joffe, and to my wife, 
Helen Wadsworth Graves, for several changes in 
the manuscript and assistance in carrying the 
book through press. 

The engraved likeness of Ramus, which forms 
the frontispiece of this book, I also owe to Pro- 
fessor Farrington, who sought it out for me, and 
to the distinguished M. Chatelain, Coiiservateur 
de la BibliotJieque de la Sorbounc, who photo- 
graphed the picture for me from the Bibliotlieque 
de Bois sard ?ind developed the plate with his own 

hands. 

F. P. G. 
August, 1912. 



CONTENTS 



I. The Times of Ramus 

II. The Breach with Aristotle 

III. Professor in the Royal College 

IV. Conversion, Persecution, and Death . 

V. General Principles and the Organization ok 
Education 

VI. The Content and Method of the Trivium 
VII. Content and Method of the Quadrivium . 
VIII. Higher and Professional Studies 

IX. Value, Spread, and Influence of Ramisi^ . 
Sources, Primary and Secondary .... 



19 
48 

71 

108 
120 
160 

173 
204 
219 



PETER RAMUS 

CHAPTER I 

The Times of Ramus 

Before undertaking a sketch of the life and 
achievements of Ramus, it will be well to gain some 
notion of his social and political setting. To under- 
stand the work of this leader, we must make a rapid 
survey of the forces that were struggling for suprem- 
acy during the sixteenth century in northern Europe, 
especially in France. This period, in the first place, 
witnessed the development of the Renaissance and 
of humanism in the countries of the north. Here the 
Greek and Latin literature came to enrich the medie- 
val ideals and the course in the seven liberal arts. 
While the preceding century had been marked by 
the growth of the movement in Italy, this vitaUzing 
development of the Italian peninsula was now senes- 
cent and was degenerating into a mere ' Ciceronian ' 
formalism. The introduction of printing, however, 
had given the movement a wider field of action, 



2 PETER RAMUS 

and the renewed spirit of independence and criticism 
could not be confined to a single country. The 
Renaissance and the classic literatures had leaped 
the Alps and had rapidly made their way northward. 
Toward the close of the fifteenth century the human- 
ists outside of Italy became very numerous, and the 
movement came to its height in the northern lands 
during the sixteenth century. 

Probably the earliest appearance of humanism 
beyond the peninsula was in the education furnished 
through the religious order of the Hieronymians. 
This brotherhood had been founded in Holland for 
the purpose of instructing the poor, in religion and 
the rudiments, but during the latter half of the 
fifteenth century the brethren added humanistic 
elements to their course and soon had a chain of 
schools extending through the Netherlands, Ger- 
many, and France.^ Connected with this humanistic 
development, either as teacher or pupil, were such 
men as Agricola (1443-1485), Reuchlin (1455-1522), 
and that great leader of northern humanism, Erasmus 
(1467-1536). The Hieronymian schools had a pro- 

1 It is still somewhat mooted whether these Brethren of the 
Common Lot actually maintained schools of their own, or fur- 
nished 'colleges' or dormitories near schools already established. 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS 3 

found effect upon education and tended to introduce 
the classics into the universities and other educational 
institutions. But there were other schools that 
were even more directly the outgrowth of humanism, 
chief among which were the Gymnasien and the 
Jesuit 'colleges.' The Gymnasien were given their 
greatest impulse and more definite form by Sturm 
during the generation succeeding the foundation 
of his school and university at Strassburg (1538).^ 
The gymnasial course of ten years,^ which consisted 
largely of Latin and Greek, proved successful and 
spread in all directions. Just before the middle of 
the century the Jesuit 'colleges,' also with a purely 
humanistic curriculum, were started by Loyola, 
and sprang up rapidly throughout Europe. 

The universities, though narrow, conservative, and 
generally reluctant to admit the classics, were like- 
wise feeling the effects of the movement. By 1470, 
a professorship of Greek was established at the 
University of Paris, and while the new learning met 

^ The great repute of this school at Strassburg probably stamped 
the name Gymnasium upon the German language as the technical 
term for the great secondary schools in which the classics have 
ever since formed the basis of the course. 

^ For the course in full, see Barnard's German Teachers and 
Educators, pp. 196-208. 



I'ETER RAMUS 



with formidable opposition, it found an influential 
patron in the king, Francis I {r. 151 5-1547). He 
protected the humanistic scholars and educators, 
and, urged by Budaeus (1468-1540) and other 
humanists, founded in 1 530 the College of France, or 
College Royal, with its chairs of Greek and Latin, as 
a protest against the scholastic and dogmatic course 
of the university. It was in this college that Ramus, 
who had shown himself an ardent humanist, was 
eventually appointed to a professorship. Humanism 
also spread in the German universities. By the 
early part of the sixteenth century, the course at 
Erfurt, Leipzig, Heidelberg, and Tubingen came 
to include the classics, and a number of new human- 
istic universities, such as Wittenberg, Konigsberg, 
and Jena, were started about the middle of the cen- 
tury. 

Similarly profound changes were being effected 
in England. A revival of the classics, which had 
been gradually gaining strength, began in earnest 
at Oxford toward the end of the fifteenth century 
with the work of Grocyn and Linacre, and at Cam- 
bridge in the first half of the sixteenth with the 
lectures of Erasmus, Cheke, and Ascham. More 
and Wolsey also lent substantial aid to the movement 



THE TIMES or RAMUS 5 

through their influence at court. Finally, by Colet'b 
foundation of his humanistic school at St. Paul's in 
1509, a successful example was set for secondar}^ 
education, which resulted in the Latin 'grammar' 
school becoming the typical secondary organization 
in England. 

But the character and the effects of the Renais- 
sance and humanism in the north differed greatly 
from those in Italy. The people of the north were 
of a deeper and more serious temperament than the 
brilliant and mercurial Italians. With them the 
Renaissance led less to a desire for personal develop- 
ment, self-reahzation, and individual achievement, 
and took on a more social and moral color. The 
prime purpose of humanism in the . north became 
the improvement of society, morally and religiously, 
and much less attention was paid to the physical, 
intellectual, and aesthetic elements in education. 
The classical revival here pointed the way to obtain- 
ing a new and more exalted meaning from the Scrip- 
tures. Through the revival of Greek, northern 
scholars sought to get away from the ecclesiastical 
doctrines and traditions, and turned back to the 
essence of Christianity by studying the New Testa- 
ment in the original. This suggested a similar in- 



6 PETER RAMUS 

sight into the Old Testament, and an interest in 
Hebrew was thereby aroused. To most people 
in the North a renewed study of the Bible became 
as important a feature of humanism as an apprecia- 
tion of the classics, and the purer religious and theo- 
logical conception that resulted mark the Reforma- 
tion as an accompaniment of the Renaissance. In 
consequence, most of the humanists of the north 
were also religious reformers, and in Germany, the 
Netherlands, France, and England humanism passed 
over into the Reformation. Erasmus differed from 
Luther only in believing that education would 
eventually effect the desired changes. So Melanch- 
thon is ranked as a reformer, but he was fully as 
much a humanist, while the great humanistic educa- 
tor, Sturm, was in hearty sympathy with the Ref- 
ormation. Lefevre and others gave the first im- 
pulse to French Protestantism through a new trans- 
lation of the Bible. Colet endeavored to dethrone 
dogma and tradition by a better interpretation of 
the Pauline Epistles and the pseudo-Dionysius. 
And it was evidently his humanistic bent and insight 
that caused Ramus, the educational reformer under 
consideration, to cast in his lot with the oppressed 
religious reformers. 



THE TIMES or RAMUS ^ 

Undoubtedly it was the support lent the cause of 
religious and theological reform by the awakened 
social and moral, as well as intellectual, attitude of 
humanism in the north, that enabled the series 
of revolts which arose against papal authority 
in the sixteenth century, to be more successful 
than were those of the Albigenses and Waldenses, 
Wyclif and Huss, in the preceding centuries. Luther's 
revolt (151 7-152 1) was primarily the result of his 
spiritual struggles and of his intellectual desire to 
formulate a better doctrine, but his persistence and 
success must be attributed to the sympathetic 
attitude of the times. Zwingli actually got his 
start (15 1 9) by learning from Erasmus and other 
humanists how little basis there was in the Bible for 
the traditional theology and ritual. Calvin (1535) 
was among those who, after the work of Lefevre, 
were led to reject the traditional doctrines and forms 
through the influence of northern humanism and 
the study of the Greek Testament. While the im- 
mediate cause of Henry VIII's revolt (1533) in 
England was personal advantage and statecraft, 
it was somewhat the result of the northern Renais- 
sance, for without the aid of the independence and 
individualism that had been growing up in England 



8 PETER RAMUS 

as the concomitant of humanism, even the king could 
not have successfully contested with the pope. 
Hence there is a close connection in the northern 
countries between the Renaissance and the Reforma- 
tion ; they are, in truth, but different phases of the 
same movement. 

Such was the general intellectual and religious 
situation of the sixteenth century. The more 
specific political and social conditions and problems 
in the different countries during this period are 
equally important and interesting in the history of 
civilization. This century marked the climax of 
the Hapsburg power. In 1516 Charles V inherited 
from four grandparents, each a sovereign in his own 
right, dominion over Burgundy, the Netherlands, 
Spain and the Spanish possessions in America, por- 
tions of Italy, and the Austrian territories, and three 
years later he was, in keeping with precedent, elected 
emperor. But his imperial control was mostly 
nominal. As an inheritance from feudalism, Ger- 
many still consisted of two or three hundred states, 
differing greatly from one another in size and 
character, but all independent, and it was not in- 
tended that the emperor, who was elected on each 
occasion by a mixed commission of seven powerful 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS 9 

princes, should be, outside his own reahn, much 
more than a figurehead. This condition of things 
accounts for the inabihty of the Diet of Worms (1521) 
and the succeeding imperial legislation to enforce 
its decrees against Luther, and for the eventual 
acceptance by the emperor of the Peace of Augsburg 
(1555), whereby each German state was allowed 
to choose for itself between the Lutheran and 
Catholic confessions. The next year the gouty 
Charles laid down the cares of government, after 
transferring his eastern possessions to his brother, 
Ferdinand, and the western to his son, Philip 11. 
By this time the Council of Trent (i 545-1546 and 
1 562-1563) and the rise and spread of the Jesuits 
were bringing the religious controversy in Europe to 
an acute stage, and Philip soon showed himself the 
most ardent supporter of the pope and the persecutor 
of all Protestants, especially in his Netherland 
dominions. Meanwhile the revolt of the English 
church had taken place during the reigns of Henry 
VIII (1533-1547) and Edward VI (1547-1553), and 
after a brief return to Catholicism and Protestant 
persecution under Mary (i 553-1 558), Elizabeth 
greatly widened the breach (1558). Before the end 
of the century she had assisted the Protestant 



lO PETER RAMUS 

Netherlands, frustrated the attempt of Philip to 
land troops in Ireland, and beaten ofif the Spanish 
Armada (1588). 

But of more direct importance to our understand- 
ing of the career of Ramus (1515-1572) is the situation 
in France itself. Here the religious controversy took 
the form of civil wars between the Catholics and 
Protestants, which lasted beyond the lifetime of our 
reformer. The Protestants were protected by Mar- 
garet of Navarre, sister of Francis I (r. 1 515-1547), 
but the king himself was stirred up by the theologians 
of the University of Paris against the reformers. He 
consented to the burning of heretics in 1535, which 
led to the flight of Calvin to Basel. Here the 
great reformer prepared the defense of his belief 
in The Institutes of Christianity (1536). Shortly 
after this he was called to the spiritual and civic 
directorship of Geneva, which, except for a brief 
interval, he held until his death (1564). His 
successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza (i 519-1605), had 
displayed great ability in the defense of Protestantism 
at the Colloquy of Poissy (1561), and both on this 
occasion and later was destined to play an important 
part in the life of Ramus. Francis I meanwhile 
grew more and more intolerant, and two years be- 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS II 

fore his death had some three thousand Waldenses 
massacred. His successor, Henry II (r. 1 547-1 559), 
also pledged himself to exterminate the Protestants, 
but did not hesitate to ally himself with their co- 
religionists in Germany when he wished to wrest 
away part of the dominions of Charles V. Under the 
short reign of the weak sons of Henry — Francis II, 
Charles IX, and Henry III — there was an era of 
almost constant civil war. Francis II {r. 1 559-1 560) 
had married Mary, Queen of Scots. During his 
brief occupancy of the throne, the government was 
controlled by his wife's two powerful French uncles, 
Francis, Duke of Guise, and Charles, Cardinal of 
Lorraine, and even after the death of the young 
king, the Guises never surrendered their influence. 
The Guise cardinal is most prominent in the life 
of Ramus, first as his patron and protector, and, 
after the reformer's conversion to Calvinism (1561), 
as his inveterate enemy. During the reign of Charles 
IX (r. 1560-1574), his mother, Catherine de' Medici, 
was virtually the sovereign, and affairs were further 
complicated by the union of the Bourbons, or younger 
branch of the reigning family, with the ' Huguenots, ' as 
the French Calvinists had come to be known. Many 
of the Huguenots belonged to noble families, as in 



12 PETER RAMUS 

the case of the Prince of Conde, who represented a 
collateral branch of the Bourbons, and of Admiral 
Coligny, whose father had been a marshal of France 
and his mother a Montmorency. These leaders were 
generally 'Huguenots of state/ and their connection 
with Protestantism came to confuse politics with 
religion, and often proved embarrassing to such 
'Huguenots of religion' as Ramus. For a time it 
seemed as if the Huguenot party might control the 
government, and the queen-mother was forced to 
issue the Edict of Toleration (January 17, 1562), 
permitting the Protestants to assemble for worship 
during the day in all places outside the towns. 

But the Guises had no intention of allowing 
matters to rest. In the same year, by a brutal 
massacre of one thousand Huguenots, who were wor- 
shiping at Vassy, they precipitated the first of the 
civil wars. During the life of Ramus there were 
three such outbreaks (1562, 1567, and 1572), which 
were characterized by the utmost savagery upon 
both sides. In the first two conflicts Ramus and 
other Protestants were driven into temporary exile. 
In 1570 peace was declared, and the Calvinists were 
allowed, for their protection, to fortify certain towns, 
such as La Rochelle, Montauban, and Nimes. 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS 13 

Coligny became a sort of privy councilor to the king 
and queen-mother, but the Guises soon led the 
queen to believe that this Huguenot leader was 
plotting against her, and they eventually brought 
about the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day 
(August 23-25, 1572). In the course of this butchery 
Coligny was slain, Conde barely escaped by recanting, 
and Ramus suffered a most horrible death. After 
the massacre, civil war again broke out, and the 
Guises, with the aid of the pope and the Parlement 
of Paris, formed the Holy League for their own inter- 
ests and the crushing of Protestantism, and nearly 
succeeded in winning the throne. Not until the 
time of Henry IV and the Edict of Nantes (1598) 
were the Huguenots ever free from persecution. 

Throughout this series of internecine religious 
conflicts Ramus was principal of the College of 
Presles, as well as a professor in the College of France. 
It may, therefore, be well at this point to examine 
the academic foundations of Paris, in order to get 
the educational background of our reformer. The 
colleges of which the University of Paris was com- 
posed in the sixteenth century, in some instances 
dated back three or four hundred years. They had 
started as boarding-houses, with resident masters. 



14 PETER RAMUS 

who conducted their students to the Rue du Fouarre, 
or street upon which the university schools were 
located and where the instruction was given. Among 
these 'colleges' was the famous one founded by 
Robert Sorbon^ in 1257 for lay students in theology, 
and the College of Presles, established in 1322, of 
which Ramus was so long the head. The various 
colleges were intended originally for students from 
the same district, province, or nation, and owed 
their foundation to public munificence, private 
benefaction, or, as in the case of the Sorbonne,^ 
to both these sources. Now in time it became more 
convenient to teach the students at home in the 
colleges than to take them up to the Rue du Fouarre 
for lectures, and the schools were, by the close of the 
fifteenth century, practically replaced by the colleges 
as the centers of instruction in the University of 
Paris. Some of these institutions afforded only 
secondary training in grammar, rhetoric, elementary 
dialectic, and the rudiments of arithmetic, but 
others combined with this the higher work of the 
* arts' faculty of the university, which now con- 

1 From this sprang the Sorbonne, or College of Liberal Arts of 
the University of Paris. In the sixteenth century it was the 
stronghold of conservative theology. 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS 1 5 

sisted almost entirely of logic to the minimizing of 
the other liberal arts. 'Grammar' schools, or sec- 
ondary schools proper, had also grown out of the 
cathedral schools and spread to the various parishes, 
so that there was some confusion between secondary 
and higher education.^ It will later be seen that one 
of the reforms recommended by Ramus dealt with 
a more careful definition of these two grades of 
education.^ 

The way in which the College of France came to 
be called into being in opposition to the traditional 
' arts ' curriculum of the university has already been 
described in the account of humanism. This new 
college was really an association for independent 
thought and research. Salaries from the king's 
treasury were paid to a body of royal lecturers or 
professors, of whom Ramus became one through the 
influence of the Cardinal of Lorraine, and, quite 
contrary to the usage of the university colleges, no 
fees were required of the students. The new founda- 
tion was bitterly opposed by the university and the 
spread of humanism was fought at every turn. The 

1 Joly, Traite historique des ecoles episcopates et eccUsiastiques, 

P- 304- 

^ See his Advice on the Reformation of the University, on pp. 78-84. 



1 6 PETER RAMUS 

contest that arose may, therefore, be described as 
between the conservative forces of scholasticism, 
ecclesiasticism, and the masters of the university 
colleges, on the one hand, and the progressive al- 
liance of humanism. Protestantism, and the royal 
lecturers, on the other. Thus Ramus, who through 
most of his career was a member of both faculties, 
found himself between two fires. As an avowed 
humanist and opponent of Aristotle from the begin- 
ning, he was, we shall see, eventually forced by the 
logic of the situation to declare publicly and at awful 
sacrifice his adhesion to Protestantism. 

No doubt before that time several factors had 
combined to shape his point of view. His own educa- 
tion at the College of Navarre was of the traditional 
sort, with its word for word interpretation of Priscian, 
Donatus, and Alexander of Villedieu in grammar, and 
its abstractions, trivialities, and hair-splitting dis- 
putations, depending absolutely upon the authority 
of the medieval Aristotle. But, like most great 
minds. Ramus was 'the heir to all the ages.' Abe- 
lard, who moderated the crudities of scholasticism 
with selections from the classical poets and opposed 
Plato to the dialectic of Aristotle ; Erasmus, the 
open enemy of barbarism and the old formulas that 



THE TIMES OF RAMUS 1 7 

held thought captive ; and many of the other human- 
ists, such as Valla, Vives, Agricola, and Sturm, must 
all be considered his spiritual forbears. In the 
preface to his Studies in the Liberal Arts, he says 
of the visit of Sturm to Paris in 1529 : — 

"Since the fair days of Greece and Rome, Rudolph 
Agricola is the first to recover the usage of logic 
and invite the youth to search the poets and orators, 
not only as the masters of style and eloquence, but as 
models of reasoning and the art of thinking. Formed 
at the school of Agricola, Johannes Sturm first made 
Paris recognize these splendid applications and 
excited in the university an incredible ardor for 
the art of which he had revealed the utility. It was 
in the lessons of this great master that I first learned 
the use of logic and then taught it to the youth in 
quite a different spirit from the sophists, relegating 
to them their furor for disputation." 

But the greatest master of Ramus was Aristotle 
himself, whom in the medieval form he so bitterly 
opposed. It will be seen that his logic and spirit 
were based upon those of the great Stagyrite, when 
properly comprehended. Undoubtedly, too, Ramus 
owed much, as he frankly confesses, to Socrates, 
Plato, Galen, and the Stoics, and even to Cicero and 



1 8 PETER RAMUS 

Quintilian, whose absolute authority he by no means 
admitted.^ In his general attitude it is likely that he 
was indebted to Lefevre and Jean le Masson ('La- 
tomus'), and in certain parts of his work to Oronce 
Finee,^ the mathematician, and to Etienne Dolet, 
Louis Meigret, Jacques Dubois, and other gramma- 
rians of his own time and land. But we shall have 
further opportunity to witness these influences 
fairly as we follow out the life and work of our re- 
former. We have now surveyed his intellectual, 
political, and social setting, and can hold him some- 
what in perspective. 

1 See pp. 42 ff. ' See p. 59. 



CHAPTER II 

The Breach with Aristotle 

Pierre de la Ramee/ later known as Petrus 
Ramus,^ was born in 1515,^ at Cust,* Picardy. 
His struggles to secure an education remind us of the 
early days of many a more recent scholar and educator. 

1 The chief sources for the Hfe of Ramus are the accounts of his 
three disciples, — John Thomas Freigius, in a preface to his 
Commentaries on Ramus' s Discourse on Cicero; Theophilus Banosius, 
in a preface to Ramus's Posthumous Commentaries on the Christian 
Religion; and especially Nicholas of Nancel, in his Life of Peter 
Ramus. Most of the works of Ramus himself also furnish us with 
a great deal of information. Waddington, Desmaze, and others 
have endeavored to unify these accounts. 

^ He assumed this Latinized name upon entering college. It is 
not an exact translation and should rather have been Rameus or 
a Ramo. 

* Joly and Goujet give the date of his birth as 1502 on the basis 
of a note upon the poem, Navarride, by Palma Cayet in 1604, but 
this former pupil of Ramus had not been associated with him for 
half a century, and, to judge from the evidence of Freigius and 
Banosius, his memory played him false. 

* An ancient town on the border of the department of the Oise, 
a short distance from Noyon, where Calvin was born. It is also 
spelt Cultia, Cusia, Cus, Cuz, Cuth, Cut, and in half a dozen other 
ways. 

19 



20 PETER RAMUS 

He was descended from a noble family, but the 
conquest of Charles the Bold had driven his grand- 
father from the estate in Burgundy and forced him 
to become a charcoal burner in an obscure village. 
The father of Ramus passed his life in labor on a 
small farm near the same place, and died when Peter 
was little more than a child. The boy early showed 
a marked taste for study, and soon exhausted the 
meager learning of the village schoolmaster. He 
then pushed on to Paris in pursuit of further knowl- 
edge, but was twice forced by poverty to return home. 
At length, however, he obtained employment as a 
servant ^ to a rich student at the College of Navarre,- 
and thus secured the scholastic opportunities he 
craved. Though but twelve years of age, young 
Ramus was large and strong, and undertook to at- 
tend his master by day and pursue his own studies 
at night. By attaching a stone to a lighted cord, 
he provided an automatic alarm for awakening after 
a few hours of sleep, and, although troubled at 

^ This was not an uncommon procedure with poor students 
at Paris. Cf. MulHnger, University of Cambridge, 346 f., for a 
similar situation at that institution. 

2 This institution was founded in 1304 by the queen, Jeanne de 
Navarre, wife of PhiHp the Fair, upon the height of Sainte G^ne- 
vi^ve. See pp. 13 f. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 21 

times with his eyes, his courage was never daunted. 
In time he passed through the secondary curriculum, 
and then spent three years and a half upon the higher 
course of the day in dialectic. This latter period 
exercised a decisive influence upon his whole career 
He soon conceived a high esteem for dialectic, to- 
gether with a disgust for the way it was being taught 
in the colleges, and began his attack upon Aristotle 
and scholasticism. What repelled him most was 
the barrenness of the current dialectic method for 
any real use in the 'arts' or in life. "When I came 
to Paris," he tells us,^ "I fell into the subtleties of 
the sophists, and they taught me the liberal arts 
through questions and disputes, without ever show- 
ing me a single thing of profit or service." In his 
Studies in Dialectic "^h^ gives a much more detailed 
and graphic picture of the whole formal and useless 
method of instruction then in vogue, together with 
the way in which a new point of view and freedom 
in thinking eventually came to him. He declares : — 
"Never amidst the clamors of the college where I 
passed so many days, months, years, did I ever hear 
a single word about the applications of logic. I 

1 Remonstrance au conseil prive, p. 24, 
* Book IV, 151. 



22 PETER RAMUS 

had faith then (the scholar ought to have faith, 
according to Aristotle) that it was not necessary to 
trouble myself about what logic is and what its 
purpose is, but that it concerned itself solely with 
creating a motive for our clamors and our disputes. 
I therefore disputed and clamored with all my might. 
If I were defending in class a thesis according 
to the categories, I believed it my duty never to 
yield to my opponent, were he one hundred times 
right, but to seek some very subtle distinction, in 
order to obscure the whole issue. On the other 
hand, were I disputant, all my care and efforts 
tended not to enlighten my opponent, but to beat 
him by some argument, good or bad : even so had I 
been taught and directed. The categories of Aris- 
totle were like a ball that we give children to play 
with, and that it was necessary to get back by our 
clamors when we had lost it. If, on the other hand, 
we should get it, we should not through any outcry 
allow it to be recovered. I was then persuaded that 
all dialectic reduced itself to disputing with loud 
and vigorous cries. 

" Perhaps you will ask me when and how I finally 
stumbled upon a better method. I will tell you 
freely and candidly, in order that, if the remedy that 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 23 

rescued me may be useful in your situation, you 
may use it liberally. I do not seek at all to convince 
you by argument ; I only wish to explain simply and 
directly how I emerged from that darkness. After 
having devoted three years and six months to scholas- 
tic philosophy, according to the rules of our university ; 
after having read, discussed, and meditated on the 
various treatises of the Organon (for of all the books 
of Aristotle those especially which treated of dialectic 
were read and reread during the course of three 
years) ; even after, I say, having put in all that time, 
reckoning up the years completely occupied by the 
study of the scholastic arts, I sought to learn to 
what end I could, as a consequence, apply the knowl- 
edge I had acquired with so much toil and fatigue. 
I soon perceived that all this dialectic had not ren- 
dered me more learned in history and the knowledge 
of antiquity, nor more skillful in eloquence, nor 
a better poet, nor wiser in anything. Ah, what a 
stupefaction, what a grief ! How I did accuse my 
deficiencies ! How I did deplore the misfortune of 
my destiny, the barrenness of a mind that after so 
much labor could not gather or even perceive the 
fruits of that wisdom which was alleged to be 
found so abundantly in the dialectic of Aristotle ! 



24 PETER RAMUS 

"I finally came upon a book of Galen on the 
thoughts of Hippocrates and Plato. ^ That parallel of 
Plato with Hippocrates furnished me much enjoy- 
ment, but it inspired me with a much greater desire 
to read all the dialogues of Plato which treated of 
dialectic. Then it was, to speak the truth, that I 
found the haven so long desired. . . . That which I 
especially enjoyed and even loved in Plato was the 
method by which Socrates refuted false opinions, 
attempting first of all to raise his hearers above the 
senses, prejudices, and traditions of men, in order 
to lead them to their own natural sense of right and 
liberty of judgment. For it appeared to him insane 
that a philosopher should allow himself to act 
according to the opinions of the masses, which for 
the most part are false and deceitful, rather than 

1 Ramus refers to the Iltpi twi' iTriroKpaTovs koI IIXaTwvo? 
Soy/AttTtov. See Galeni Opera (Kuhn ed.), V, i8i ff. Plato believed 
that the nature of the mind could be discovered by a method 
similar to that by which Hippocrates investigated the nature of 
the body. Probably Ramus was little acquainted with Greek at 
the time, and was indebted for his knowledge to a Latin trans- 
lation of Galen by Theodoric Gerard, which Sturm had pubhshed. 
See Guggenheim, Beitrdge ziir Biographic dcs Ramus, p. 141. 
Ramus later admitted this, as we find from the preface to his 
Pro'eme des Mathematiqnes (1567) and at the beginning of his 
Schoke in libcrales arks (1569). 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 25 

apply himself to ascertaining only the facts and their 
true causes. In short, I began to say to myself (I 
should have hesitated to say it to another) : ' Well, 
what hinders me from * socratizing ' a little, and 
examining, independently of the authority of Aris- 
totle, whether that doctrine of his dialectic is the 
most true and useful ? Perhaps that philosopher has 
abused us by his authority, and in that case, I need 
not have been surprised at having studied his books 
without deriving any profit from them, when they 
contained none. . . . And what if that whole doc- 
trine should prove a delusion ?' " 

Thus Ramus gradually broke with the scholastic 
philosophy and the Aristotelianism of the day. But, 
owing to his impulsive nature and the impetuosity 
of youth, as well as to the immoderate and con- 
troversial temper of the times. Ramus, once con- 
vinced, pushed his opposition to an extreme, and 
became straightway an ardent reformer, if not a 
revolutionist. He attacked without discretion the 
great idol of the day, whose word was revered as that 
of an oracle and upon the basis of whose dialectic 
the Church had built her doctrine.^ But his very 

1 Aristotle several times narrowly escaped being canonized in 
the Middle Ages. See Cousin, Cours, 2 serie, t. II, p. 240. 



26 PETER RAMUS 

vehemence attracted attention and enlisted a large 
number of partisans. His first opportunity for a 
public combat came with his master's examination 
in 1536,^ when he formulated as his subject for dis- 
putation the audacious proposition: "All that 
Aristotle has said is false." ^ In developing his 
subject, he maintained in the first place that the 
writings attributed to Aristotle were spurious, and 
secondly that they contained only errors.^ His 
disputants, the judges, were impaled on the horns of 
a dilemma, since they could not, as was their wont, 
appeal to the authority of Aristotle without begging 
the question. They were unable to make any head- 
way against the youthful disputant. As a result, 
after assailing his thesis for a whole day and having 
their arguments refuted with great spirit, subtlety, 
and directness, they were at length obliged to admit 
the candidate to the degree with honors. 

This paradox of the young scholar startled all 
the universities of France, and quickly spread to 
Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. The academic 
world stood aghast at his audacity. If Ramus were 

' According to custom, this probably occurred in Lent. 
^ Qucecumque ah Aristotele dicta essent, commentitia esse. 
2 Freigius, op. ciL, pp. 9 £f. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 27 

right, all the universities of Europe were wrong. He 
was denounced by many scholars as an ingrate on 
the ground that he had used the weapons supplied 
by Aristotle to attack the donor himself. To this 
he replied in the very words of Aristotle, when that 
philosopher declared that he preferred the truth 
even to his master, Plato: "Had my own father 
promulgated those errors, my attack should not 
lack force and persistency. The truth is more 
precious and dear to me than my father himself, 
and I shall hold myself guilty to let my regard for 
a single person stand in the way of all." ^ 

Thus when barely twenty-one, the son of a poor 
widow became one of the most striking figures 
within the realm of intellect. The attainment of 
his degree entitled him literally to become a ' master ' 
in the university, and he began his labors at the 
College of the Mans^ under the auspices of Jean 
Hennuyer. This scholar, who had been his teacher 
in philosophy at the College of Navarre, was prob- 
ably likewise a professor at Mans,^ and Ramus may 
have been substituting for him. At any rate, he 

* AristoteliccB Animadversiones, fol. 73-75. 

^ See pp. 13 f. 

' See Du Boulay, Hist, de I' Univ. de Paris, t. VI, 952. 



28 PETER RAMUS 

did not stay here long, but undertook to start at the 
little college of Ave Maria, in opposition to the 
Aristotelians, an education more in conformity with 
his own ideal. He associated with himself in this 
endeavor Omer Talon of Beauvais, an able professor 
of rhetoric, who ever afterward remained a close 
friend and enthusiastic supporter of his educational 
reforms, and Barthelemy Alexandre of Champagne, 
a noted Greek scholar, who could teach the Hellenic 
philosophers and orators in the original. 

Here, for the first time in any college of the Univer- 
sity of Paris, Greek and Latin authors wxre read at 
the same time, and the study of 'eloquence,' or classi- 
cal literature, was joined with that of philosophy, 
and of the poets with the orators. His plan for 
enlarging the breadth and culture of higher instruc- 
tion proved interesting, stimulating, and almost 
dramatic. The students flocked to hear Ramus, 
whose reputation as an orator was established the 
first day. This remarkable success he followed up by 
planning to reform the work of the university in 
general and the arts faculty in particular. He 
put in several years forgetting much of what he had 
learned at the College of Navarre and in recon- 
structing all the liberal arts. He especially en- 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 29 

deavored to continue his reform in dialectic, and 
foresaw in the application of this subject to the other 
liberal arts the keystone to the entire arch, and at 
that point he centered the structure opposed to Aris- 
totle and the medieval philosophy founded upon 
him. In this progressive step toward real human- 
istic study and fruitful logic he probably had as 
guides such writings as the Sapiens (1522) and 
De Disciplinis (1531) of Vives,^ which must have 
been well known to him, and the lectures on dialectic 
of Sturm,^ who had just completed his seven years 
of teaching at Paris. The masters in the College 
of Ave Maria, then, made their lectures attractive 
and practical by seeking illustrations and models of 
the operations of the mind in the classical poets and 
orators, thus verifying in an interesting way the 
rules of logic and banishing the barren disputes that 
had long held sway at the university. "As the 
result of a happy thought," says Ramus,- "I put 
forth the proposition that the masters of the uni- 
versity were grievously in error to suppose that the 
liberal arts were well taught in making of them mere 
interrogations and syllogisms, and that the whole 
of this sophistry should be cast aside and the 

1 See p. 17. ^ Remonstrance au conseil prive, p. 25. 



30 PETER RAMUS 

subjects should rather explain and suggest real 
usage." 

To crystallize this position, Ramus in 1543 pub- 
lished in Latin two epoch-making books on logic, 
the Divisions or Institutions of Dialectic^ and the 
Animadversions on Aristotle} In the former work 
he stated dogmatically a number of elementary 
principles of logic in terse and elegant language. 
This treatise, however, had in it little that was con- 
troversial, with the exception of the brief introduc- 
tion, but the latter work consisted in a fierce 
onslaught upon Aristotle, filled with the bitter 
invective that was characteristic of the age and his 
own impulsiveness. It was most unfair and indis- 
creet in its critical analysis of the great logician, 
representing him as a 'sophist,' an 'impostor,' 
and a 'sacrilegious man,' and his disciples as 'bar- 
barians,' whose disputes were barren and noisy. 
He ridiculed and condemned with great force and 
eloquence their subtleties and follies of all sorts. 
He boldly declared himself the opponent of a routine, 
and the apostle of freedom of thought, and he held 
himself ready to encounter all labors and dangers, 

1 DialecticcB partitiones ad Academiam Parisiensem (in later edi- 
tions called DialecticcE institutiones). 
* AristotelioB animadversioncs. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 3 1 

in order to destroy the sophistry of his opponents, 
even to the extent of laying down his hfe for the 
cause.^ Finally, he reiterated the famous paradox 
of his master's disputation with scarcely any modera- 
tion,^ and discharged a fusillade of abuse at the 
effete teachings of the professors in the faculty of arts. 
So determined an attack upon the Aristotelian 
citadel could no longer be passed over unnoticed, 
and the Peripatetics massed themselves for battle. 
Ramus, too, seems to have understood fully what 
the consequences of his treatises were likely to be. 
He undertook to intrench himself behind the good 
will of the king, Francis I, to whom he pre- 
sented a handsome copy of the Divisions of Dialectic, 
together with a eulogy of his reign and wishes for his 
prosperity.^ With a similar motive he dedicated the 
Animadversions to two former college mates, both 
afterwards cardinals, Charles of Lorraine and Charles 
of Bourbon, and appealed to their kindness of heart, 

1 See Animadversiones, fol. 15 v. 

2 His later works on the subject, notably the Scholce dialedicce, 
were much less extreme and vehement, and were directed rather 
against the scholastic interpretation of Aristotle than the master 
himself. 

5 Waddington (Ramus, p. 37) says this volume is in the Bib- 
liotheque Imperiale (now Nationale), No. 6659, of the Latin manu- 
scripts, and quotes from the dedication (pp. 421 ff.). 



32 PETER RAMUS 

which he declared had often been experienced by 
himself and had been much praised by their revered 
master, Hennuyer. While these precautions were 
well taken, they were not suf3Eicient to withstand the 
storm that immediately arose and broke over the 
head of Ramus. The conservative masters of the 
university, perceiving the sympathy of the students 
for the vigorous reformer, and fearing a revolution, 
were alarmed and enraged. The rector of the 
university, Pierre Galland, principal of the College 
of Boncour, especially felt himseK aggrieved, and, 
while taking no overt step, secretly urged two well- 
known masters to expose the fallacies of Ramus. 
These men were Perion, a professor of theology, who 
had made a pretentious and inaccurate translation 
of Aristotle, and Govea, a conservative, but rather 
learned and witty jurist. The arraignments of 
Ramus, which they were only too eager to make, 
were filled with pedantry and invective, and in- 
timated that dire calamities were in store for the 
reformer, should he not repent and 'make his 
peace with honest folk.' ^ Their defense of Aristotle 
had more force than point, and the writings of that 

1 As sources, see (i) Perionii pro Aristotele in Petrum Ramum 
orationes II and (2) IJispanm bihliotheca, t. II, class. VII, pp. 300 f . 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 33 

philosopher, with their austere dignity, would have 
proved by themselves a more weighty answer than 
these violent and unjust anathemas of his dis- 
ciples. 

Galland, however, was succeeded the following 
year^ by Guillaume de Montuelle, principal of the 
College of Beauvais, who acted with more direct- 
ness in the matter. He at once presented the 
two offending works to the faculty of theology for 
censure, and when this had been passed, he had the 
university ask the civic authorities to suppress the 
books. Ramus was summoned before the provost of 
Paris as an enemy to religion and the pubHc peace 
and a corrupter of youth, and at the request of 
Govea, who acted as the university's advocate, the 
case was brought before the Parlement^ of Paris. 
Then, since the procedure of this tribunal appeared 
too deliberate and regular to satisfy the anger of 
the Aristotelians, Galland got Pierre du Chastel, 

^ The term of the rector's office was but one year. 

- The functions of this body are not to be confused with those 
of a parliament. The local parlements, of which that of Paris was 
the most important, were primarily higher law courts, but, in addi- 
tion to tr5dng cases, they claimed the right to register or disapprove 
the decrees of the king, and maintain certain other legislative 
powers. 

D 



34 PETER RAMUS 

bishop of Macon and a close friend of the king, to 
intervene and bring the complaint to the royal notice 
at once. Francis, finding the growing tempest and 
uproar unendurable and wishing it to subside as 
quickly as possible, referred the case, at Du Chastel's 
suggestion, to a commission of five, two of whom were 
to be chosen by each side and a fifth by the king. 
Ramus succeeded in getting two talented personal 
friends to act for him, but, although their arguments 
completely vanquished the other three judges, 
who were zealous Aristotelians, they were overborne 
and withdrew from the farcical trial in disgust. 
Sentence was then pronounced upon the defendant 
as follows : — 

"Our most Christian king, in his love for phil- 
osophy and liberal studies, has committed to us the 
task of examining the book which P. Ramus has 
published against Aristotle under the title oi Animad- 
versions on Aristotle and of passing judgment upon 
it. We have read the book carefully and have 
examined and weighed every one of its propositions 
and have come to this decision : Ramus has acted 
rashly, arrogantly, and impudently, in undertaking 
to condemn and impugn the art of logic, which has 
been accepted among all nations; and which he 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 35 

himself does not understand at all. Moreover, the 
reproaches which he heaps upon Aristotle are of such 
a kind as to exhibit his ignorance and stupidity, as 
well as his wickedness and bad faith, since he repre- 
hends many of the truest doctrines, and attributes 
much to Aristotle that this philosopher has never 
held. In short, his book contains nothing but 
fictions and scurrilous slanders. Wherefore, we 
have judged that it is to the best interest of the 
republic of letters that this book be suppressed by all 
possible means, and that his other book. Institutions ^ 
of Dialectic, which also contains many statements 
that are untrue and falsely attributed, shall be 
treated likewise." ^ 

Thus not only was the Animadversions not granted 
a fair trial, but even the more constructive work of 
Ramus was condemned without even being ex- 
amined, solely because it was by the same author. 
The king, who boasted of his title of 'father of let- 
ters,' was swayed by the clamors and confirmed the 
unjust decision and did everything possible to make 
it effective. In his decree, after giving a lengthy 

* See footnote on p. 30. 

2 The original text is given in Du Boulay, Hist, de VUniv. de Paris, 
t. VI, p. 394. 



36 PETER RAMUS 

account of the trouble that had disturbed his Mear 
and beloved daughter, the University of Paris,' ^ and 
of the trial that had ensued, he declares : — 

"Be it known that we have condemned, suppressed, 
and abolished the said books, and made prohibitions 
and warnings to all printers and booksellers of our 
kingdom, fiefs, domains, and seigniories, and to all 
our other subjects of whatever estate and condition, 
that they neither print, spread abroad, sell, or utter 
the said books, in our kingdom, fiefs, and seigniories, 
under pain of confiscation of their books or of corporal 
punishment. And likewise to the said Ramus that 
he neither lecture upon said books nor have them 
written or copied or spread abroad in any manner, 
and that he do not lecture on dialectic or philosophy 
of any sort whatsoever, without our express per- 
mission, and also he no longer use such slanders and 
invectives against Aristotle or other ancient authors 
received and approved, or against our said daughter, 
the university, under the penalties above mentioned. 
So we commend and decree to our provost of Paris, 

^ La fille ainee du roi de France, ' the eldest daughter of the king 
of France,' was the name given in 151 5 by Francis I to the Univer- 
sity of Paris and generally used after that. See Pasquier, Recherches 
de la France, p. 811. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 37 

that he may cause the present ordinance and judg- 
ment to be executed." ^ 

The edict of the king was registered by the parle- 
ment without opposition, and was published by 
trumpet and posted in French and Latin in all parts of 
the city. It was dispatched throughout France, and 
sent to foreign towns and universities to vindicate 
the orthodoxy of Paris. It was received by the 
conservatives of the university with transports of 
joy. The obnoxious books were burnt in front of 
the College of Cambrai by one of the biased judges, 
and the Peripatetics indulged in a greater celebration 
than would ordinarily be held after a military 
victory.^ Some of his opponents, however, regretted 
that the king had let Ramus off with so light a penalty, 
and insisted that he should have been exiled or sent to 
the galleys as a common malefactor.^ Ramus, how- 
ever, could do nothing except submit to these indig- 

^ Given in full in Du Boulay, op. cit., t.VI, p. 657 ; Charpentier, 
Ad expositionem disputationis demethodo Responsio; and La Choix 
du Maine, Bibliotheques FratiQoises under Pierre de la Ramie; 
Niceron, Memoires, XIII. 

2 This was the testimony given by Genebrard in his eulogy at 
the funeral of Danes, the judge who burnt the book of Ramus. 
See Vie, Eloges, et Opuscules de Pierre Danes. (Paris, 187 1, p. 90.) 

^ See Charpentier, Animadversiones in Dialecticarum Institutiones 
P. Rami, fol. 13 r. 



38 PETER RAMUS 

nities and conceal his resentment as much as pos- 
sible. Later he declared with his characteristic 
philosophy : — 

" I had undertaken to make known the principles 
of Socrates, and found that I had drawn upon my- 
self the same sort of calamity as that which over- 
whelmed him. For a complete resemblance my case 
lacked only the hemlock." ^ 

Nevertheless, Ramus seems not to have been alto- 
gether silenced. It was only philosophy that he was 
forbidden to teach, and in the very year of his con- 
viction (1544) we find him at work as usual with 
Talon and Alexandre at their college.^ While he 
could not deal with logic or any part of philosophy, 
and confined himself entirely to the classics and 
mathematics,^ he still defended the union of literary 
studies with philosophy. Moreover, Talon was not 
in the least intimidated, and publicly announced 

^ Scholce mathematics, 1. Ill, p. 74. 

" There are still preserved the addresses of the three colleagues 
to their students in November, — Tres orationes a tribus liberalnim 
disciplinarum professoribus, Petro Ramo, Audomaro Talao, Bar- 
tholomcBO Alexandro, LuteticE in gymnasio Mariano habilce.. 

^ During this period he made his first Latin translation of Euclid, 
which he anonymously dedicated to his patron, the Cardinal of 
Lorraine. More will be heard of his mathematical publications 
hter on. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 39 

his complete agreement with the position taken by 
Ramus and his intention to rescue philosophy from 
the darkness in which it was groping. He praised the 
Animadversions most heartily and announced that 
he would produce a similar work on rhetoric.^ 

The next year an even more favorable opportun- 
ity presented itself to the two reformers. Ramus 
was invited by Lesage, the aged principal of the 
College of Presles, to take charge of this historic 
school.- The college was badly run down in finances 
and attendance, but, through the eloquence and im- 
proved management of Ramus, it shortly became 
one of the best.^ Here, with the assistance of Talon, 
who soon followed him to Presles, Ramus continued 
to introduce the same reforms and even to push 
them further. He had the temerity to announce as 
the subject of his first lectures that passage of The 
Republic of Cicero that treats of Platonic philosophy, 
and, in spite of the ban upon his lecturing upon the 
subject, he commented without reserve, on the ground 
of teaching the classics or 'eloquence,' upon the 

^ Colkctan. prcefai., epist. {isil), PP- 19 ff- 

-It was founded in 1314 by RaouJ de Presles, a secretary of 
Philip the Fair, according to Waddington. Farrington, from 
Jourdain and Chauvin, estimates 1322 as the date. 

' See Nicholas of Nancel, Rami vita, p. 19. 



40 PETER RAMUS 

Dream of Scipio} Moreover, the two friends again 
taught the Latin and Greek authors in the same class, 
and joined the study of 'eloquence' with that of 
philosophy. While not nominally permitted to teach 
philosophy himself, Ramus still insisted upon the need 
of the union of the two lines of study, and in October, 
1546, delivered his oration upon the subject.^ To 
carry out this idea and yet live within the interdict, 
it was arranged that Talon should give a course on 
philosophy in the morning, while Ramus lectured 
in the afternoon upon rhetoric, illustrating through 
the poets, orators, and other authors the usage and 
application of the principles of logic. This double 
system of lectures was in itself a startling innovation, 
but Ramus undertook to show that it was in keeping 
with the intention and example of Aristotle and with 
the practice at the College of France,^ and expressed 
the hope that the plan might become general in the 
university colleges also. 

Such vitality and attractiveness in instruction not 
only seemed destructive of the ' arts ' traditions, but 
soon lured students in large numbers away from all 

• His Somnium Scipionis ex libro sexto Ciceronis de Repuhlica 
Petri Rami pralectionibus explicatum was published in 1546. 
^ Oralio de studiis philosophic el eloquenticB conjugendis. 
' See pp. 4 and 15 f. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 41 

the other colleges. This was a constant source of 
grievance to the conservatives, and, failing in their 
attempt to make trouble between Ramus and the 
retired principal, Lesage,^ they constantly complained 
officially of this 'subversion of the College of Presles.' ^ 
On several occasions the rectors felt called upon to 
investigate, and once Ramus was haled before the 
parlement by Galland for this revolutionary offense, 
but through the influence of his patron, Charles of 
Lorraine, he was acquitted.^ Moreover, by the 
fortunate circumstance of the succession of Henry II 
to the throne in 1547, the power of this cardinal 
protector, who had been the preceptor of the new 
monarch, was greatly increased, and almost his 
first act was to procure from the king an abrogation 
of the edict against Ramus. The ecclesiastical favor- 
ite showed the king the necessity to philosophy of 
freedom in thinking and of the right to adopt or 
reject without limitation the opinions of Plato, 
Aristotle, or any other thinker. The king promptly 

^ Banosius, pp. 9 f. ; Nancel, p. 18. The accusation of having 
forced out the old principal was repeated a decade later by his worst 
enemy, Charpentier {Animadversiones adversus P. Ramum, 1555, 
foL 4 v., e/ alibi). 

^ See Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 399. Ramus was repeatedly 
denominated turbator collegii Prcellei. 

' Ramus, Pro phil. disciplina (in Collectan. prcBfat., p. 310). 



42 PETER RAMUS 

canceled the interdict and the parlement registered 
his decision. Thus, says Ramus, " the true God who 
knows to what end he has produced his creatures, 
reserved the conclusion of my case for the good King 
Henry, who having heard the controversy recounted, 
unbound my tongue and hands, and gave me the 
right and power to pursue my studies." ^ 

This gave Ramus a latitude in pursuing his studies 
and literary work that he was not slow to utilize. In 
the Academy (i.e. University) of Talon he had the 
story of his persecutions narrated, and through the 
offices of the same friend there were published new 
editions of the two condemned books with many 
modifications and additions. Ramus himself within 
a few years collected his commentaries on the letters 
of Plato and on the orations and rhetorical works of 
Cicero and Quintilian in eight or ten publications,^ 
dedicating most of them to his powerful patron, the 

• See Remonstrance au conseil prive (1567), p. 25. 

^ Brutincp q'ucesf tones in Orator em Ci:crwis. 1547 and 1549; 
RhetoruB distinctiones {in Quintilianum) , 1549; Platonis epistola 
a Petro Ramo latince factce, et dialeclicis rerum summis hrevitef 
expositcB, 1549; M. T. Ciceronis dc Jato liber, 1550; M. T. Cite', 
ronis epistola nona ad P. Lentulum dialecticis rerum summis hreviter 
iUustrata, 1550; M. T. Ciceronis pro Caio Rubirio perduellionis re& 
or alio, 1551 ; Prcelectiones in libruni I Ciceronis de legibtts, 1553 j 
M. T. Ciceronis de lege agraria, 1552. 



j?HE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 43 

cardinal. In these writings Ramus called for a 
more humanistic and methodical treatment of 
rhetoric, and even ventured to criticize Cicero and 
Quintilian. This insurgency precipitated new at- 
tacks by the conservatives. His old opponent Perion, 
who had attacked the Animadversions, now took up 
the cudgels as vigorously in defense of Cicero. In 
the dedication of his work to Du Chastel, who had 
brought the former case before the king, he virtuously 
declares: "You know that I defended Aristotle 
against Ramus four years ago in a lengthy speech and 
I now beHeve that I cannot give up Cicero, the father 
of Roman eloquence, to him without a defense." ^ 
And addressing the professors of all faculties, he 
recalls his former predictions and the threat of 
Ramus to reform all the arts, and "not to stop 
until logic has been entirely delivered from the dark- 
ness of Aristotle and it has been shown how it ought 
to be applied to all sciences." - Perion, therefore, 
appeals in alarm to his fellow-masters against 
"Ramus, who is preparing to reject Hippocrates 
and Galen, Euclid and Archimedes, and to declare 
that you are ignorant of medicine, geometry, and 

1 Pro Ciceronis Oraiore contra Pelfum- Ramttm or alio, 

2 Preface to the Platonis epistola: lalincs JocUb. 



44 PETER RAMUS 

astronomy," and beseeches all "who cherish Cicero 
as the father of eloquence to resist Ramus, who 
repudiates skill and judgment."^ This absurd out- 
burst he followed by reprinting his former speeches in 
defense of Aristotle against the Animadversions.'^ 

But this excited response was tame in comparison 
with the invective that was heaped upon Ramus 
because of his criticism of Quintilian. Galland, who 
had stirred up much of the fury over the Animadver- 
sions, was quite as indignant at the attack of a pro- 
fessor of rhetoric upon Quintilian as at a logician 
for a criticism of Aristotle. In the dedication of his 
edition of Quintilian^ to Du Chastel, he assails Ramus 
as 'the corrupter of youth' and as a man guilty of 
nearly all the vices and crimes in the calendar. 
While Ramus followed his custom of not replying to 
these anathemas, the whole discussion seems to 
have reached such absurd proportions as to amuse 
many outside the university circle, and to be of 
enough moment to attract the humor of the satirist, 
Rabelais, and the poet, Du Bellay. Much fun is 
poked at this Petromachy or ' war of the Peters, ' and 
various changes are rung on the easy puns upon 

* P6rion, Pro Ciceronis Orator e, fol. 3. 

^ See pp. 32 f. » Paris, 1549. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 45 

Peter (' rock') , Ramus ('branch'), and Galland ('gal- 
lant')-' 

In fact, this whole ' tempest in a teapot ' might 
have subsided through ridicule, had it not been for 
the entry of a new and more vigorous champion into 
the lists against Ramus. This was Jacques Char- 
pentier or ' Carpentarius,' a professor in the College 
of Boncour and a former pupil of Galland, who re- 
mained until death the vicious and implacable enemy 
of Ramus. He came of a rich and well-known family 
with many powerful patrons, especially among the 
clergy, and he had at the age of twenty-five manipu- 
lated himself into the rectorship of the university. 
Thinking to signalize his induction into office by a 
popular stroke, and urged perhaps by Galland, he 
began by bringing, in the name of the University, 
trumped-up charges against Ramus and accusing him 
of violations of the rules. He declared in particular 
that the professors of the College of Presles, contrary 
to university statute, expounded the poets and ora- 
tors, instead of confining themselves to philosophy. 
Then, without any investigation of the teaching or any 
defense from Ramus, in a packed meeting of his cabi- 

1 Rabelais, Pantagruel, 1. IV, Prologue ; Du Bellay, Salyre de 
Maistre Pierre Cuignet sur la Petromachie de VUniversite de Paris; etc. 



46 PETER RAMUS 

net, he had the students of that college debarred from 
the degrees and privileges of the university. A sharp 
controversy followed, in which Carpentarius accused 
Ramus of treason to the university.^ And the latter 
was convicted by a biased commission of six selected 
from the higher faculties. An appeal was had to the 
parlement, and once more Ramus was given his 
rights through the influence of the Cardinal of Lorraine. 
The usual slow procedure was somewhat expedited, 
and the vigorous defense made by Ramus for aca- 
demic freedom in interpreting Aristotle and other 
authors and his protest against the tyrannical rules 
and abuses of the university won him from fair- 
minded judges a favorable verdict. Although the 
University custom was sustained by requiring 
the reformer to explain the regular authors in the 
way prescribed by the statutes, he was permitted 
upon holidays, feast days, Sundays, and such hours 
as were left open by the rules, to teach whatever 
authors he chose and as freely as he liked. This 
amounted to giving him nearly two thirds of the year 
to interpret as he washed. 

' The response ui Ramus to this charge is embodied in his Pro 
philosophica Parisiensis academice discipHna or alio, wliich he de- 
livered in 1 55 1. 



THE BREACH WITH ARISTOTLE 47 

But to prevent any recurrence of this chicanery 
and persecution, the cardinal now persuaded the 
king to establish a new chair of Eloquence and 
Philosophy at the College of France, and appoint 
Ramus to the position. This step was taken, and, 
while as principal of the College of Presles, Ramus 
was still amenable to the University, as lecturer 
at the Royal College he became dependent only 
upon the king. He was thus afforded an unwonted 
freedom to develop his reforms, and the hostility 
and envy of the Aristotelians and conservatives was 
for a brief space estopped. 



CHAPTER III 

Professor in the Royal College 

Ramus began his new duties in the fall of 1551. 
Although only thirty-six, his fame was widespread. 
The virulence of his enemies and the stubborn 
opposition of the conservatives, quite as much as 
his own brilliance and the worth of his reforms, had 
centered the attention of the intellectual world 
upon him. His opening address at the College of 
France was attended by many masters of the 
university, members of the parlement, higher clergy, 
and persons in all classes to the number of two 
thousand.^ The importance of the occasion as a 
crisis in his career and the eloquence of the orator 
will perhaps justify quoting this inaugural speech^ 
at some length : — 

"There are two things, my hearers, which at the 

* Banosius, p. 10 ; Nancel, p. 20 ; Zwinger, Theatrum humana 
vitcB, p. 3697, col. b. 

2 This inaugural address {Oratio initio sua professionis hahita) 
was published the same year and is still extant. 

48 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 49 

beginning of my professorship every one will ex- 
pect from me ; in the first place, that I express my 
thanks to those through whom I have been chosen for 
this position; in the second place, that I explain 
to you the reason for my appointment to the office. 
On the 6th of August, when Charles, Cardinal of 
Lorraine, brought the case of my teaching to the 
notice of King Henry, it pleased the king that I 
should be among the number and body of the royal 
professors, and that, as I have done from the begin- 
ning, I should teach ' eloquence ' at the same time 
with philosophy, and he announced that decision 
to me in an epistle couched in terms of special 
honor. Wherefore, I am exceedingly grateful to 
Henry of Valois, most Christian of kings, and shall be 
as long as life endures. For, my hearers, if a father 
with helpless children should find silver, gold, and 
great and precious wealth that had been left by his 
ancestors, and yet could not on account of the rocks 
and the roughness of the ground either carry it home 
or share it with his children ; and at length some 
Hercules, having pitied the wretched fortune of the 
father, should rid the place of rocks and roughness, 
and should make it quite possible for him to take 
it away, share, and enjoy it, would not that happy 



50 PETER RAMUS 

father exult with exceeding great joy ? What thanks 
he would give to that Hercules ! 

' ' But I was just such a wretched father for years. 
Many pupils had been committed to my care and 
affection, and the great and precious wealth of 
* eloquence ' and philosophy I saw had been left as an 
inheritance in the works of the ancient orators, poets, 
and philosophers, but overlooked through the care- 
lessness of the heirs. And when I desired to collect 
it rationally and systematically, to use it suitably in 
life, and share it with my pupils, incredibly harsh 
conditions hindered and opposed my efforts. Nay, 
even my hands were fettered, lest I should take it, 
and my lips were sealed, lest I tell some one of it, and 
I was forbidden to disclose anything by speech or 
writing. Meanwhile, King Henry, a Gallic Hercules, 
as it were, came to aid me in my distress, and, four 
years ago, at the request of Charles, Cardinal of 
Lorraine, unloosed my hands and tongue, and gave 
me the power of teaching, practicing, and illustrat- 
ing ' eloquence ' and philosophy. And within the last 
few days, when he perceived that the old burdens 
were being renewed and made heavier, he even more 
bountifully and magnificently revealed his kindness 
and decreed that my labors should be not only 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 5 1 

unfettered, but even honored with a royal stipend. 
Wherefore, O Henry, most Christian king, should I 
say that I owe the life within this body to thee, who 
dost free, support, and honor me, I should put it 
mildly. I owe to thee that which is far dearer than 
my body and life, — my soul, whose labors and vigils 
are nourished and live through thy benefits, and, I 
hope, will be nourished and live to herald thy praise 
to future ages. . . . 

" The second place for thanks, my hearers, is due to 
Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, who, as soon as he 
knew my straits, offered to become my patron and 
protector, — a real Maecenas in his love of letters 
and in his zeal and aid in relieving virtue. Nor 
was he attracted by my meager ability so much as 
induced by the remarkable excellence of his own 
nature and training. I declare the truth, \\dthout fear 
of contradiction, — since the memory of very many 
still living and present mil bear witness and give 
credence to my speech, — when I say that Charles 
of Lorraine from early years was so greatly devoted 
to learning and virtue that all of us who knew him 
admired the eager mind of the youth. His atten- 
tion in listening to the master, his meditation and 
study of what had been taught, his pains in imitat- 



52 PETER RAMUS 

ing the example of the author expounded, and his 
efforts in practicing every variety of speaking and 
writing were of the very highest. Only recently I 
have read an elegy of most brilliant language and 
thought written by him in the midst of an exceed- 
ingly busy life; so sound is the fruit of his well- 
rooted learning. . . . 

''In my most bitter hours, as I have before inti- 
mated, when I was surrounded on all sides by every 
sort of annoyance, Charles of Lorraine was my sole 
comforter. It is he that has taught King Henry at 
all times to be liberal in philosophy toward every one. 
Therefore, attribute to Charles of Lorraine the credit 
for my being freed and restored by King Henry, and 
for the four years that I have pursued my studies in 
peace. As the latest favor, this last winter, when I 
was indicted and called into court, because I joined 
'eloquence' with philosophy (in my teaching), how 
great was his kindness and equity in perceiving and 
expediting the whole affair ! He heard first that a 
most serious charge had been made. Some one 
declared that I was an Academic, an enemy to God 
and humanity, flouting all laws, human and divine, 
and even teaching my pupils to scorn them, that I 
expounded misleading passages of St. Augustine in 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 53 

the interest of unbridled and impious license, and 
that, in order to abuse unguarded minds more 
easily, I wished to eliminate all logical disputations 
(from the curriculum of my college). 

" When the cardinal told me at dinner of this and 
bade me answer, — 'Alas!' I cried, 'my Maecenas, 
what do I hear ? Out of what occurrences in my 
entire life could any one fabricate so false a suspicion 
and base a slander ? For I subscribe to, know, and 
approve of no curriculum, save that which is con- 
sistent and harmonious with the true and useful 
precepts of grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy, our 
state, and the Christian religion. Quite contrary to 
this absurd piece of mendacity, I maintain the 
principles of the true and useful arts, illustrate them 
with examples, and exercise and practice them daily. 
So far am I from scorning them or teaching others 
to do so ! My books, inscribed with familiar exam- 
ples from the poets, orators, and philosophers, I 
have shown thee. Nor have I cited misleading pas- 
sages from Augustine, and, I believe, there is no 
college in the entire university in which logical 
disputations are more diligently pursued than in 
mine. Wherefore, my Maecenas, in the name of the 
living God, most just and holy, exert thy valor and 



54 PETER RAMUS 

vindicate my innocence of this foul and horrid charge. 
Such are the accusations under which I am con- 
demned, unless thou bearest me aid ! ' 

" Thereupon, my hearers, I witnessed the indigna- 
tion of this most noble and virtuous cardinal violently 
aroused by such an atrocity. On the next day, then, 
he demanded of the president of the parlement that 
my case be at once brought to trial. . . . They 
who were present can remember with what true and 
weighty words the cardinal assailed my accusers. 
With equal firmness the next day the judge sat in 
the court for almost three continuous hours and . . . 
heard the case. At the close he and the parlement 
decided unanimously that my students should be 
completely restored to their former privileges, that 
lectures on philosophy should be given at the regular 
hours on the days ordinarily set for university 
sessions, and that in the remaining hours of the 
regular days I might lecture upon the poets, orators, 
and other classic authors, instead of upon phi- 
losophy. And it was just this union of ' eloquence ' 
and philosophy for which I had been so long con- 
tending ! . , . 

"Therefore, my Maecenas, by gaining this most 
righteous verdict, thou hast obtained leisure and 



PROFESSOR fN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 55 

peace for my studies, and sincerity and truth for phi- 
losophy. . . . And when the university of Paris shall 
come to realize how vast and infinite a benefit thou 
hast bestowed, she will hail thee as her Maecenas, 
and not mine alone. She will compare thee not 
only to the great cardinals of the ages, but will judge 
that Charles the Great (Charlemagne), her founder, 
has miraculously returned in the guise of Charles of 
Lorraine to mold and complete the crude and 
inchoate beginnings of his ancient university. Since 
such is the case, my hearers, in my own name and 
that of the state, I render most hearty thanks to 
Charles of Lorraine." 

In an equally poetic way he followed the account 
of his vindication with a general exposition of his 
ethical and educational ideas. At the close of the 
oration he was met with deafening plaudits from the 
assembly, in which were seated many of his adver- 
saries. This brilliant inauguration was the fore- 
runner of a most remarkable career. The utterances 
of Ramus were no longer confined to the students of 
a single college, but resounded throughout Paris, and 
an innumerable body of students not only from all 
parts of France, but from many other countries of 
Europe, flocked to hear him. He realized that the 



56 PETER RAMUS 

friends who had stood by him had formed high ex- 
pectations of his achievements, and never allowed his 
work to fall below the best of which he was capable. 
Instead of the ordinary routine method of droning 
through a commentary upon a given passage, he made 
a treatment of the author that was at once free and 
interesting, and gave illustrations and applications 
that greatly added to the value of his exposition. 
The material of his lectures on the classics he soon 
began to publish, and rapidly put out a number of 
commentaries relating to the works of Cicero, 
Vergil, and Caesar.^ His interest in philosophy and 
logic, however, did not flag, and he took advantage of 
the new liberty given him to show in his lectures on 
the poets and orators the way in which the principles 
of logic obtained in any work of the intellect. Hence 
he revived his old method of joining the study of ' elo- 
quence ' with that of philosophy. Similarly, when- 
ever he explained any classical author, he endeavored 

' M. Tulii Ciceronis de lege agraria contra P. Servilium Rulluvi 
tribunum plebis orationes tres (1552), M. T. Ciceronis in L. Catilinam 
orationes 1 1 II (1553), P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica (1555), P. 
Virgilii Maronis Georgica (1556), M. T. Ciceronis de optima genere 
oratorum prafatio (1556), Ciceronianus (1557), M. T. Ciceronis 
familiarium epistolarum libri XVI (1557), Liber de moribus veterum 
Gallorum (1559), Liber de Casaris Militia (1559). 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 57 

to see what art or science he could teach through this 
medium. Thus the orations and the treatise On 
Fate of Cicero served as texts on rhetoric and dialec- 
tic, the Georgics of Vergil were used as a means 
of teaching 'physics' or natural science, and the 
Dream of Scipio in Cicero's Republic for treating 
astronomy. He felt that he might thus advance 
the study of the liberal arts and make them more 
useful. This practical tendency of his teaching 
caused his opponents to give him the nickname of 
usuarius, or 'utilitarian.' ^ 

In fact, Ramus planned nothing short of a reform 
of all the liberal arts, and during this period wrote 
most of his works upon each of the disciplines in the 
trivium. In grammar he published his lectures on 
Priscian and other grammarians under the title of 
Studies in Grammar.'^ This was not merely a criti- 
cal treatise, but undertook to establish construc- 
tive principles. About the same time he put out 
works upon Latin grammar,^ and in the succeeding 

1 See Turnebi disputatio ad librum Ciceronis De Faio (1556), fol. 
220. If ' pragmatist ' were not so modern, it would render this word 
most aptly, 

^ S choice Grammatics (1559). 

^ GrammaticcB libri quattuor (1559) and Ritdimenta grammatica 
(1559)- 



58 PETER RAMUS 

years he wrote treatises upon Greek grammar,^ and 
even a work on the vernacular,^ which ran through 
many editions. On rhetoric Ramus also produced 
reform works. The critical treatises on Cicero and 
Quintilian, which had led to such an uproar,^ he 
now modified and united under the less aggressive 
title of Studies in RJietoric^ The more constructive, 
if no less difficult, task of positively formulating the 
principles of rhetoric from his point of view he left 
to his colleague, who published during the early part 
of this period the Lectures ofOmer Talon on Rhetoric } 
Ramus also continued his works upon dialectic. While 
he still felt that all the liberal arts were merely applica- 
tions of this subject, he published separate treatises 
upon it. First of all, however, there appeared a 
much improved edition of the Institutions of Dialectic} 
The next year was printed his vernacular work on the 
subject,^ which is considered by some^ to be his most 

^Grammatica grceca (1560) and Rttdimenta grammaticce grcecce 
(1560). 

2 Growere (1562), afterward (1567,1572,1587, etc.) Grammaire 
dc Pierre de la Ramie. 

■' See pp. 42 ff. ^ ScholcB rhetorioB. 

^ Prcdectiones in A. Talaei rhetoricant, 1554 and 1562. 

* See pp. 30 f.' 

^ Dialectique (1555). 

* See Cousin, Fragments Philosophiques Modernes, I, p. 14. 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROVAL COLLEGE 59 

important contribution to philosophy, and in the two 
years following he published respectively his final 
word on logic in two books, ^ and a modified and much 
enlarged edition of the Animadversions - in twenty 
books which he called Studies in Dialectic.^ 

Thus by 1559 the position of Ramus with regard 
to the trivium, or elementary liberal arts, had been 
fairly formulated, and he was now at liberty to under- 
take works on the quadrivium, especially mathematics. 
In this subject, however, he was one of the path- 
breakers, as not much had been done up to this time 
at the University of Paris. He thus had need of 
instructing himself before attempting to impart his 
knowledge to others. He had been one of the best 
pupils of Oronce Fin^e,'* the first professor of mathe- 
matics at the University, and while still at the College 
of Ave Maria, he had produced a translation of the 
first six books of Euclid, in which he tried to apply 
logic to the presentation of the subject.^ Eleven 
years later he had published an elementary arith- 
metic.^ He now returned to the study of geometry 
with great ardor. For a time, however, he tells us, 

' Dlalecticce. libri duo (1556). ^ See p. 10. 

* Scholce dialectics (i5S7)- * See p. 18. 

^ Euclides {!$$/[). See p. 164. 
^ Arithmelicce libri Ires (1555). 



6o PETER RAMUS 

he was unable to get beyond the tenth book of Euclid 
and abandoned the subject in disgust. "But soon," 
says he, " I was ashamed of stopping so, and bringing 
myself back to the place where I had gone astray 
I devoured the tenth book, and continued the study 
of pyramids, prisms, cubes, spheres, cones, and 
cylinders. Moreover, once I had clambered over 
the first crags and learned the elements of Euclid, I 
read through the Spherics of Theodosius and the 
Cylindrics of Archimedes. I had already mastered 
ApoUonius, Serenus, and Pappus, and after a few 
months I was able to pierce the last mysteries of 
geometry." ^ From this account it can be realized 
how difficult was the study of geometry at that time. 
He who would master it had largely to make his own 
translation from the very imperfect editions of the 
Greek mathematicians as he went along. Ramus 
worked at the subject persistently, both alone and 
with chosen pupils, and not only made himself one 
of the leading mathematicians of France in his day, 
but helped to train a number of distinguished mathe- 
matical scholars. 

He did not, however, begin to work on the subject 
in earnest until he had been able to secure more 

* Or alio de professione liber alium artium (1563). 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 6 1 

leisure and material. Later he was able to procure 
copies of the Greek mathematicians from the royal 
library at Fontainebleau, some of the treasures from 
Venice and the Vatican through the Italian ambassa- 
dors, and works from foreign scholars, like Camera- 
rius and Rheticus of Germany and Ascham of Eng- 
land. From 1566 on he gave considerable time to 
mathematics. While he had Forcadel, whom he had 
nominated for a professorship in the Royal College, 
teach arithmetic and geometry in French, he himself 
lectured on the Greek mathematicians, of whom he 
had obtained copies. He also bought or had copied 
manuscripts of Archimedes, Proclus, and others, and 
had several of the young mathematicians translate 
them into Latin under his direction.^ Within a 
space of four years he wrote some five or six important 
works on mathematics in Latin or French.^ 

Just before this, while he was enduring an exile 
of which we shall shortly hear. Ramus also found 
time to complete the only one of his treatises that 



1 Nancel, Epistolce, p. i, 1. 61. 

^ Actiones du(B mathematiccB (1566), Preface sur le Proeme des 
MaihSmatiques (1566), Prooemium ntathematicum (1567), Geome- 
tricB lihri septem et viginti (1569), and Scholar um mathematicarum 
lihri unus et Iriginta (1569), are still in existence. 



62 TEIER KAMUS 

we have upon Physics, or natural science.^ It was 
taught in the College of France and elsewhere, and 
he would gladly have devoted much of his life to 
furthering it, had it not been for the persecutions 
that were now approaching. After his return to 
Paris the book was sent to press. 

It must not be supposed that the enemies of Ramus 
were idle during this period of his productiveness or 
that this reform of the matter and method of the liberal 
arts was carried on without a struggle. But the con- 
troversies were of much the same type of guerilla 
warfare that he had previously endured and had 
about as little result. A typical instance is his 
quarrel with the doctors of the Sorbonne over pro- 
nunciation. The professors of the College of France 
tried to bring back the original pronunciation of 
Latin in place of the erroneous and slipshod methods 
into which the university colleges had degenerated. 
The chief point of discussion was the pronunciation of 
qu, from which combination the Sorbonists were wont 
to omit the u in speaking. For example, they pro- 
nounced the Latin words as kiskis, kankam, kantus, 
and kalis instead of giving the initial value of kw. 
Similarly, h in mihi was pronounced gutlurally as ch. 
1 Scholarum physicarum libri oclo (1565). 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 6,^ 

111 the controversy which followed, it is even said* 
that one of the reformers was summoned before 
parlement and prosecuted for grammatical 'heresy,' 
and, had it not been for Ramus and his other col- 
leagues, who attended the trial and gave the judges 
to understand that grammar was out of their juris- 
diction, it might have fared badly with the luckless 
professor. The contest over the reforms of Ramus 
in rhetoric was also continued by Galland, Perion,- 
and their sympathizers. 

But the most rabid opposition was raised to the 
positions of our reformer on logic. Here Car- 
pentarius, jealous and thirsting for revenge after 
his defeat in 1551,^ was most persistent and 
bitter. He did not dare attack Ramus as 
lecturer in the Royal College, but the latter's 
position in the College of Presles enabled him to 
renew all his virulent methods. He again insisted 

1 Crevier {Hist, de I' Univ. de Paris, 1. X, § 2) claims that the 
whole story of prosecution for heresy in grammar is very unlikely, 
although one would hesitate on that account to impeach wholesale, 
as he does, all the testimony offered by the Ramists. The incident 
is narrated by Ramus himself {Schol. gram., 1. II) and confirmed by 
Zwinger {Theatrum humance vita, Vol. IV, 1. i, p. iioo), and, as 
Waddington intimates (pp. 87 f.), there were few lengths to which 
the theologians of the day would not go. 

2 See pp. 32 ff. and 43 ff. » See pp. 45 ff. 



64 PETER RAMUS 

that the reformer was breaking tlie university 
statutes when he taught Aristotle by going freely 
from idea to idea rather than by the traditional word- 
for-word method, and he opposed more vigorously 
than before the union of the study of ' eloquence ' 
with that of philosophy. Happily, however, the parle- 
ment held to its previous decision to let Ramus teach 
as he wished on some two hundred days of the year 
and at odd hours on other days.^ Thereupon, 
Carpentarius, under the pretext of a commentary 
on the Institutions of Ramus, ^ let loose the vials of 
his wrath. In this pamphlet he repeats all the pet 
epithets with which he had previously assailed him. 
Ramus is called 'slanderer,' 'plagiarist,' 'sophist,' 
'comedian,' 'skeptic,' and 'corrupter of youth.' He 
brutally recalls the verdict of the king a dozen 
years before,^ and gets a malicious pleasure out of 
the fact that Ramus was constantly modifying his 
statements about dialectic.'* He mocks the reform- 
er's pretensions to dignity and jests about his long 
beard, declaring that without such artificial aid he 
himself had been able to attain to the rectorship. 

^ See p. 46. 

^ Jacohi Carpentarii Animadversiones in libros Ires Dialecticarum 
institutioniim Petri Rami (1555). 

* See pp. 34 ff. * See footnote 3, p. 65. 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 65 

Ramus did not consider this mountebank worthy 
of a reply, but the case seemed different when criti- 
cism was offered by Adrien Turnebus. The latter 
was a learned professor and a man of character 
and social position, but he had been piqued because 
the loss occasioned by the death of his predecessor 
in the College of France had in a eulogy^ by Ramus 
been declared to be quite irreparable. In editing the 
De Fato of Cicero, Turnebus embraced the oppor- 
tunity for venting his displeasure upon Ramus, who 
had commented upon the same work.- In this work 
Turnebus criticizes the modifications which Ramus 
made in his dialectic works as his knowledge broad- 
ened.^ He accuses him of inconsistency and instabil- 
ity, and asks : "Which is your genuine position in so 
many shifting editions ? Do you yourself know what 

^ The predecessor of Turnebus in the lectureship was Jacques 
Tousan, who had been one of the former teachers of Ramus, and 
had given him much encouragement in his ideas on logic. See 
preface to his Plalonis Epistolce, and Collectan. prcefat., pp. 99 f. 

2 The title of the book shows his animus : Ad. Turnebi dispuiatio 
ad librum Ciceronis de fato, adversus quemdam qui non solum 
loglais esse, verum etiam dialedicus haheri vult (1556). 

^ While Ramus did not answer this common criticism at the 
time, he had the year before said in the preface to his Dialectique: 
"But truly this inconsistency is praised as a real consistency not 
only by Horace and Apelles, but also by philosophers, especially 
Aristotle, who teaches us that philosophy ought, for the sake of 



66 PETER RAMUS 

you wish ? ' ' And again he declares : " It is a poor way 
to conceal your ignorance by unceasingly slandering 
the great authors. You have only gained thereby a 
sad reputation for ignorance, impudence, and vanity." 
Ramus felt that an adverse opinion from such a 
source must be met, and while he could not openly 
break his custom of keeping silent under criticism, 
without loss of time he issued under the name of 
Talon a dignified and courteous reply. ^ He made 
it very clear that he did not rank Tumebus with 
Carpentarius, and rebuked him mildly for his attack. 
Turnebus in turn replied through a friend, and the 
quarrel stopped with mutual respect, if not agree- 
ment, and before long the two scholars became firm 
friends. 

Thus Ramus escaped practically unscathed from 
the various attacks upon his reforms, and, as the 
years passed, his reputation as an educator grew 
constantly greater. During this period of prosperity, 
too, he was able to demonstrate his gifts as an orator 

truth, to criticize not only all others, but also itself. Moreover, 
this consistency, accused of being inconsistency, is ordained of 
God and of Nature, as a difficult and slippery ascent, by walking 
up which we discover and define the only road to the knowledge 
of science and learning." 

^ A. Talcei Admoniiio ad A. ruriuintm (1556). 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 67 

and diplomat. He was chosen by the university to 
represent it before the king upon various occasions. 
In 1557, especially, he was greatly commended for 
pleading the cause of the university under very 
important circumstances. A quarrel of long stand- 
ing ^ between students of the university and the monks 
of St. Germain over the possession of the 'student 
fields' (Pre-aux-dercs) had broken out again with 
much violence and rioting.^ While the students 
were mostly to blame for stirring up the old dispute, 
they were not the first to shed blood. Yet they 
alone suffered for the disturbance. The parlement 
condemned one student to be hanged and burnt, 

^For a former (1548) outbreak, during which the students 
devastated the abbey gardens and broke the windows of the mon- 
astery with stones, see Du Boulay, Hist, de VUniv. de Paris, t. VI, 
pp. 406 ff . While Ramus apparently tried on this occasion to pacify 
the students by haranguing them, he was ever afterward, on the 
strength of his speech, accused by his enemies of further inciting 
the students. E.g. Felibien, Hist, de VAhbaye royal de Saint Ger- 
main-des-Pres, p. 185, and Hist, de la ville de Paris, t. II, pp. 102- 
105 ff. But Du Boulay and De Thou do not even mention Ramus 
in the affair. In fact, the evidence against Ramus seems to come 
from a prejudiced source, Jacques du Breul, who was a member 
of the order and declares he was present at the riot. See Thedtre 
des antiquitez de Paris (161 2), 1, II, pp. 385 f. 

2 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 491 ff.; Crevier, Hist, de VUniv. 
de Paris, t. VI, 29 ff. ; Felibien, Histoire de la mile de Paris, t. II, 
pp. 125 ff. 



68 PETER RAMUS 

and others, who had been arrested, seemed to be 
doomed. The same tribunal ordered that the gates 
of the university colleges be closed at six every 
evening, the students disarmed, and all public 
lectures suspended. Moreover, the king, hearing 
of the riot and being exceedingly wroth, confiscated 
the fields, required all foreign students to leave the 
kingdom within a fortnight, and expelled the 'extems,' 
or students living at Paris with their parents, from 
the university. In dismay the faculties sent a 
delegation to the king, to secure some modification 
of the judgment. Ramus was a member of this 
commission, and, through his eloquence and his 
influence with the Cardinal of Lorraine, its most 
influential member, met with great success. Upon 
the promise of reform, the king was at length per- 
suaded, quite contrary to all expectations, to revoke 
the measures against the university, reprieve the 
condemned students, restore the public lectures, 
countermand the banishment of the foreign students, 
and order parlement to stop its prosecutions. The 
delegates were overwhelmed with praise, especially 
Ramus, when by request he gave in a public address 
an account of the whole affair. But the king was 
also inclined to insure the fulfillment of the promised 



PROFESSOR IN THE ROYAL COLLEGE 69 

academic reforms, and insisted upon tlic selection 
of a special committee of seven to investigate and 
propose what would be most necessary and useful 
for the improvement of the institution. Ramus was 
appointed by the faculty of arts, together with his 
old opponent, Carpentarius, and the report that 
he offered later ^ was most important in its effects 
upon the University of Paris in particular.^ 

Another diplomatic mission of Ramus that was of 
great service to education was his securing the arrears 
in salary due the professors in the College of France. 
During the one-year reign of Francis II and the first 
three years of Charles IX's reign, the Guises were 
in complete control of the government,"^ and the 
finances were notoriously mismanaged . For two years 
the professors of the Royal College failed to receive 
their stipends, although they continued conscien- 
tiously to fulfill their duties, and in 1561 Ramus was 
sent to petition the king. He was also commissioned 
to solicit a confirmation and renewal of the privileges 
for the university, as had to be done at the beginning 
of each reign. Although his patron, the Cardinal 

1 See pp. 78 flf. 

- Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 489 and 517 f. ; Felibien, op. cit., 
t. II, pp. 1057 f- 
' See pp. n ff . 



70 PETER RAMUS 

of Guise, was no longer at the court to intercede 
for him, the Prince of Conde, who was in favor with 
the queen-mother,^ and other persons of prominence 
supported his claim and enabled him to bring back a 
goodly portion of the accrued salaries and all the 
former charters and privileges of the university, 
bound in a single volume. His zeal and tact aroused 
great enthusiasm in the academic circles, and an ac- 
count of his services to the university was inscribed 
at the end of the manuscript of privileges. 

Hence by 1561 nearly all the old adversaries of 
Ramus, including even the fanatical Galland and the 
offended Turnebus, had been conquered through his 
persistence and evident sincerity. Esteem succeeded 
hostility with every one save Carpentarius. The op- 
position of that unprincipled leader was now increased 
through envy, for Ramus had come into high favor 
with king, parlement, and university. 

1 See pp. II ft. 



CHAPTER IV 

Conversion, Persecution, and Death 

Much of the prestige that Ramus had obtained 
would seem to have been due to the friendship of the 
Guises, who were so influential in church and state. 
It now remains for us to see the effect upon his career 
of becoming a Protestant and so sacrificing their 
friendship. The Duke of Guise and his brother, the 
Cardinal of Lorraine, represented the extreme Catho- 
lic party, and Ramus, while endeavoring to dethrone 
Aristotle, had remained a member of the church in 
good standing. Until 1561 he maintained in his own 
life all the observances of a zealous Catholic. He 
went to mass every morning at six, and, under 
penalty of a severe reprimand, required the same 
practice of the students in the College of Presles.^ 
He was attached to Mother Church by bonds of 
unusual emotion and material interest, but the pro- 
cess of his conversion, while slow, was inevitable. He 
was too clear-headed not to have misgivings as to 
the efficacy of the ritual and dominant theolog)' of 
1 Nancel, op. cit., pp. 23 f., 53, 70. 
71 



72 PETER RAMUS 

the church of the times, and his personal and pro- 
fessional associations all tended to draw him into the 
Protestant camp. The medieval Aristotle, whom 
he had vigorously assailed, was still protected by 
the church, and the two were so thoroughly identified 
as to be almost indistinguishable. Those who de- 
parted from the traditional views of the Greek phi- 
losopher were reputed to be heretics,^ and it could 
not be denied that such reformers as Luther, Zwingli, 
and Calvin had first dreamed of suppressing Aris- 
totle.^ Moreover, the clergy were generally very 
ignorant, and an intellectual man was bound to find 
himself associated, to a great extent, with the Hugue- 
nots, who at the time had nearly a monopoly of learn- 
ing. A majority of the professors at the College 
of France were actually Protestants or suspected of 
being such, and many of the patrons and friends 
of Ramus were more or less under the influence of 
the new religion.^ A large number of his pupils 

1 Rapin, Reflexions sur V usage de la philosophie, § VI. 

- Two of the propositions of Luther condemned in 1521 by the 
faculty of theology at Paris related definitely to Aristotelianism. 
See also pp. 5 fT. 

^ It is said that even the Cardinal of l^orraine sympathized 
secretly with the aims of Protestantism, and his attitude at the 
Colloquy of Poissy points that way. Jean de Montluc, bishop 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 73 

at the College of Presles, too, were of Huguenot 
parentage, or became converted through the influ- 
ence of the school. 

Ramus himself was early suspected ^ of Calvinistic 
leanings. Ascham even wrote to Sturm- in 1552 
that one of the pupils of Ramus had stated that 
while his master's convictions were secretly Protes- 
tant, he still hesitated to make an open confession 
of his faith. But for nearly a decade longer Ramus 
protested his attachment to the church, and insisted 
that he had attacked Aristotle simply in the name of 
the Gospel, on the ground that his Ethics was hereti- 
cal and pagan. ^ The immediate cause of his conver- 
sion was the Colloquy of Poissy. This conference 
took place in September, 1561, with the idea of 
bringing out a discussion of the points of difference 
between Catholics and Protestants and so effecting 
some degree of toleration between the two parties, 
but it resulted only in increasing the bitterness.'* 
Strangely enough, it was not the speech of Theodore 

of Valence, was also sympathetically inclined, and frequently 
showed himself a good friend to the Protestants. 

1 Nancel, op. cit., pp. 2>2) ^iitl 63. 

"^Letters of Ascham (Oxford, 1703), Book I, Letter 9. 

^ Du Verdier, Bihliotheque franqaise, article on Aristotle. 

*■ See p. 74. 



74 PETER RAMUS 

Beza,^ the able exponent of Calvinism, that convinced 
Ramus, but the argument made in reply by the Car- 
dinal of Lorraine. That prelate publicly admitted all 
the abuses of the church, the vices of the clerg}^, and 
the superiority of the primitive church to that of 
the day, but did not grant the obvious conclusion.^ 
Ramus and others felt it forced upon them.^ A 
letter written by Ramus to his former patron some 
nine years later states definitely how the address 
affected him. He says in part : — 

"It is not through myself, it is through your favor 
(the greatest of all the many you have heaped upon 
me) that I have come to understand the precious 
truth, so well presented in your discourse at the 
Colloquy of Poissy : namely, that of the fifteen cen- 
turies which have passed since the advent of Christ, 
the first was truly the 'golden age,' and that, in pro- 
portion as it has been departed from, all ages which 
have followed have been more vicious and corrupt. 
Hence, having to choose between these different ages 

^ See p. lo. 

' Guillemin, Lc Cardinal de Lorraine, p. 487. 

^ The colloquy is now believed to have greatly increased the 
number of Huguenots. See Crevier, 0^. cit., t. VI, p. 127; Pueux, 
Hist, de la Reformation Franqaise, Book IX, Chaps. VIII-XIII. 
Among the converts was also Caraccioli, bishop of Troyes. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 75 

of Christianity, I attached myself to the 'golden 
age,' and since that time I have never ceased to read 
the best writings of theology. I have put myself in 
harmony and communication with the theologians 
themselves as far as I could; and have further, for 
my own edification, written Commentaries upon the 
chief points of religion." ^ 

Thus, having once started on the new line of 
thought. Ramus went the full way. The commen- 
taries mentioned above were the result of his attempt 
to apply dialectic to theology, as he had to all the 
other sciences of the day, but they were not completed 
until after his contact with the reformed theologians 
in Switzerland, and were published after his death. 
He began to absent himself from mass and the other 
usages of the church, and even quietly protested 
against them. To an intimate friend he declared 
that "two things have been especially misunder- 
stood and distorted by all Christians of latter days, — 
to wit, the sacrament of the Holy Supper, and the 
second commandment in the law, which forbids all 
worship of images; so much so that, in these two 
respects, under the pretext of piety, we have fallen 
more and more into an execrable idolatry." ^ Of 

1 Collect, prcej'., pp. 257 £. ^ Banosius, op. cil., p. 25. 



76 PETER RAMUS 

course no sentiment could be more clearly Protestant 
than this, and we cannot be surprised to find that 
Ramus now, while not openly out of communion with 
the church, showed great toleration, if not marked 
favor, to all Huguenots among his students. It 
seems hardly possible that he ever went to Protestant 
services, much less that he took his students there, 
as did some professors, but it is more than likely that 
he was among those intended to be reprimanded by 
the rector in his address of November 30, 1561.^ 
And it is certain that the students of the College of 
Presles were generally becoming reformed and de- 
serting the Catholic observances. A pupil of Ramus 
tells us that at the Feast of the Passover in 1562 he 
and his master were the only two communicants in 
the chapel, except for one visitor, who had strayed in.^ 
The Reformation, however, had grown to such 
proportions that the queen-mother, upon the advice 
of the fair-minded chancellor of the kingdom, Michel 
de I'Hospital, felt obliged to issue the Edict of Tol- 
eration.'' While this did not go the full distance and 
allow the Protestants to worship in the cities or in 

1 See the account of Cre\ner (op. cit., t. VI, p. 126) and of Du 
Boulay {op. cil., p. 545). 

* Naacel, op. cit., p. 72. ' See p. 12. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 77 

the evening, it was hailed with great delight on the 
part of the Huguenots and with much indignation and 
opposition from the Catholics. The students of the 
College of Presles celebrated the event by bursting 
into the chapel and tearing down the images and 
statues. Ramus, of course, had little to do with such 
a desecration, but he received the full blame. His 
opponents incited the populace against him,^ and 
denounced him to the university authorities as an 
iconoclast, but an investigation by the rector failed 
to reveal the evidence desired against him.'- On the 
other hand, the rector and a majority of the princi- 
pals of the university colleges made a violent demon- 
stration against the decree, and exhausted every 
expedient to prevent the parlement from registering 
it.^ When, after two months of delay,* the parle- 
ment did finally register the obnoxious edict, all the 
smoldering wrath of the Guise party burst into 
fiame.^ The Duke of Guise declared openly that 
"his sword would never be sheathed until he com- 

1 Nancel, op. cit., p. 7.. 

^ Banosius, op. cit., p. 24 ; Nancel, op. cit., p. 71 ; and Du Boulay, 
op. cit., t. VI, p. 54Q. 

=* Du Boulay, op. cit., pp. 549 f. ; Genebrard, Chronographie , 
p. 746. 

< Crevier, op. cit., t. VI, p. 129. * See pp. 11 ff. 



78 PETER RAMUS 

pelled every Frenchman to become a Catholic or 
leave the realm." ^ 

By this time Ramus must have completely sacri- 
ficed all his influence with the Guises. As will be 
seen later, his warm patron, the Cardinal of Lor- 
raine, had completely turned against him. While 
himself inclined toward the position of the Protes- 
tants, statecraft forced him to become their most 
bitter opponent. Meanwhile, despite these dis- 
turbed conditions, Ramus continued to produce his 
works on the liberal arts,^ and in this very year of 
conflict (1562), as a member of the committee to 
which he had been chosen five years previously, he 
presented his report upon academic reform to the 
king and queen-mother. This Advice on the Reforma- 
tion of the University of Paris^ boldly attributes many 
of the abuses that had sprung up to the unlimited 
number of professors. "For, instead of a given 

^ Pasquier, Lellres, I. IV, 10. ^ See p. 120. 

^ Advertissements sur la reformation de I'universite de Paris au 
roy, or, in the Latin edition, Procemium reformandce Parisiensis 
academicB ad regem, was published anonymously, but, coming 
from the press of Andre Wechel, his coreligionist and regular 
publisher, its origin was evident, especially as, from internal evi- 
dence, the author was clearly a Protestant, a professor of philosophy, 
a royal lecturer, and a member of the commission of investigation. 
See Archives Curieuses de VUistoire de France, t. 5, pp. 11 5-163. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 79 

number of doctors for teaching, an infinity of men 
have been raised up, who, provided they have ac- 
quired the name and degree of master in the faculty 
of which they make profession, whether ignorant or 
learned, without other selection, have undertaken to 
make a trade of teaching philosophy, medicine, juris- 
prudence, or theology. Hence has arisen the storm 
which has despoiled all our fields." ^ But while the in- 
structors have gradually multiplied, the number 
of students has remained practically the same, and 
the result has been a great increase in the fees for tui- 
tion and degrees. Thus, for philosophy, the expense 
of the pupils, which was first fixed by ordinance and 
statute at four to six ecus ^ at the most, had finally 
been raised to fifty or fifty-six livres} Later, he 
shows that the professional faculties have become 
even more disproportionate. The faculty of law, 
in obedience to the statute of 1534, is content with 
twenty-eight ecus per student, but " the faculties of 
medicine and theology, in comparison with that of 

^ Advertissements, p. 8, 

2 The ecu mentioned must have been the ecu d*or, as the silver 
coin of that name was not introduced until 1642, and the franc 
d' argent, often called ecu, was not authorized until 1575. The gold 
piece was worth a little more than fifty sols, or two and one half 
livres, and, judged by the weight and fineness of the American 



8o PETER RAMUS 

philosophy, which has only quadrupled its former 
revenue, have increased their fees, not in arithmetical 
proportion, which would have been beneath their 
dignity, but in geometrical proportion.^' ^ The pro- 
fessors of medicine, instead of twenty-eight ecuSj 
now ask eight hundred and eighty livres, without 
counting the presents to apothecaries and barbers, 
their former pupils,^ while the theologians demand 
of their unfortunate students more than one thousand 
livres. This large sum is distributed from the begin- 
ning of the course under some thirty items, which in- 
clude fees for the professors, priors, porters, and presi- 
dent, for the banquets and suppers of the teachers, 
president, classmates, and examiners ; and for the 
various grades of examination, theses, seals, degrees, 
sermons, hoods, and perquisites. Moreover, even 
the honor of being proclaimed first at the master's 
examination can be bought for ahighprice.^ With 
regard to these unnecessary expenses, Ramus asks : — 
" Of what use are so many gloves, caps, banquets, 

dollar, worth something over two dollars. Hence the fees in this 
case were raised approximately from $8 or $12 to $40 or $44.80; 
i.e. they were practically quadrupled. Of course the purchasing 
value was much greater than it would be for the same sums to-day. 

^Op. ciL, p. 18. -Op. c'll.. p. 24. 

^Op. cit., pp. 27 flf. Cf. also pp. II, 22, and 59 for the expenses 
of the other degrees. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH Si 

to prove the diligence and competency of the stu- 
dents ? Where do so many purses go, and to what use 
are they converted ? They are partly distributed to 
the procurers, receivers, singers, and priests who say 
mass and solemn vespers ; a good part of this money 
is even spent on candles for the Day of Purification. 
In short, the money and the receipt of the degree 
are administered in such a fashion that those who do 
the least service for the students receive the most 
spoils from them. By an ordinance then, sire, abol- 
ish that numerous troop of professors, select worthy 
and competent men as lecturers, remove those ex- 
penses and charges, not only the unnecessary, but 
even the former fees, for it is an unworthy thing that 
the road to knowledge should be closed and for- 
bidden to the poor, no matter how learned and well 
educated they may be, and it cannot at present be 
otherwise, because of the expenses and necessary 
charges. Sire, but say the word. Numerous con- 
vents, monasteries, colleges, and canonries of the city 
of Paris will think themselves happy and greatly 
honored to furnish these expenses and will easily 
and promptly do so, if only you command them. 
Bring it to pass that the only legitimate expenditures 
for the scholar shall be those of his living, dress, 



82 PETER RAMUS 

books, work, vigils, and the pursuit of letters for the 
greater part of his life." ^ 

He gives a further description of the abuses. The 
infinitude of masters not only has engendered in- 
finite expense, but has produced neglect in the matter 
and method of instruction. The faculty of arts is 
perhaps the least reprehensible in this direction, but 
the abandonment of the public lectures in the 
Rue du Fouarre ^ and the substitution of inferior 
private instruction by each college has been unfor- 
tunate. It is especially to be regretted that the 
teachers of philosophy use the questioning method in 
Aristotle and require nothing in the way of real 
practice in the use of logic. The grammarians and 
rhetoricians, however, have set them an example, as 
they have come to discuss the rules but little, and 
train their pupils through reading and imitating 
good authors.^ The situation is still worse in the pro- 
fessional faculties. In the faculty of law, only canon 
law is taught, and the civil law is entirely neglected. 
The professors of medicine and theology are even too 
lazy to do anything more than preside at the presen- 
tation of theses or at public debates, and out of their 

1 Op. cit., pp. 13 flf. Cf. pp. 25, 26, 34, etc. 

2 See pp. 13 ff. ' Op. cit., pp. 35 ff. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 83 

enormous salaries pay a few ecus to any bachelor 
or newly made master that they can get to do their 
work for them. For the same reason, in medicine the 
practical exercises in searching after and analyzing 
herbs and simples, in experimenting with their effects 
upon the body, and in discussing symptoms and reme- 
dies are totally neglected; and the theologians are 
likewise too lazy to be anything but blissfully igno- 
rant of the Scriptures.^ 

The remedy of Ramus for both this exorbitant 
cost and this inferiority of university training is 
exceedingly simple, but apparently very revolution- 
ary. He proposes that the king appoint a small 
number of public professors, who shall be paid by the 
state, and teach the various branches of philosophy, 
law, medicine, and theology, and lay aside all dispu- 
tations and barren argumentations. Thus he would 
have strong, regular, and gratuitous instruction given 
in all the faculties. Specifically, he would establish 
in the faculty of arts a chair in mathematics and add 
work in ' physics ' ; in the faculty of law, instruction in 
civil law ; in the faculty of medicine, chairs of botany, 
anatomy, and pharmacy, and the genuine practice 
of medicine under the supervision of the professors; 

1 Op. cit., pp. 61 and 82. 



84 PETER RAMUS 

and finally, in theology, besides the regular lectures, 
lie would give the students a training in the stud}' 
of the Bible and the interpretation of both testaments 
in their original languages. Further, he suggests that 
a line of demarcation be drawn between these higher 
subjects and the lower work in grammar, rhetoric, 
and dialectic, and that the latter studies be relegated 
to the colleges, which, after the establishment of 
public chairs, would otherwise be without a function. 
These suggestions were badly received at the time 
Ramus offered them, but they were largely carried 
out in the succeeding reigns of Henry III and Henry 
rV. In the suggested distinction between secondary 
and superior instruction, however, he anticipated a 
movement that was not realized until after the 
French Revolution. 

Throughout this treatise on academic reform the 
attitude of Ramus toward the theologians and the 
clergy, together with his insistence upon a purified 
Bible and the careful study of the Scriptures, shows 
how much further he had progressed in Calvinism. 
In every reform suggested he now appears in spirit 
to be a zealous Protestant. His religious practices 
reveal a similar change. This is seen in the character 
of the worship in his college chapel. He here modi- 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 85 

(led Llic nature of the sermons, abolished services lor 
the dead and prayers to the saints, and followed in 
general a service very different from the orthodox 
one.^ This afforded his enemies a hold upon him 
that they had never been able to secure through his 
heresies in philosophy and rhetoric. 

Meanwhile, the bitterness between Catholic and 
Huguenot had been increasing. Owing to the politi- 
cal ambitions of the Guises on the one hand and the 
' Huguenots of State ' on the other, the chancellor of 
the realm had been unable to bring about the peace 
and harmony for which he had striven. The massacre 
at Vassy occurred (1562), and became the signal for 
the outbreak of the first of the civil wars.- The out- 
raged Huguenots, despairing of justice, flew to arms, 
and France was deluged with blood. In July of this 
year the war governor of Paris banished all Calvinists 
from the city, and Ramus was forced to flee. He left 
the administration of the College of Presles to one of 
his professors, but the absent principal was declared 
a traitor, and his oflice was turned over to a more 
orthodox, if somewhat ignorant, incumbent.^ Safe 

' Nancel, op. cit., pp. 71 f. ' See p. 12. 

^ See Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 659; Felibien, Histoire de la 
ville de Paris, t. II, p. 1084. 



86 PETER RAMUS 

conduct was, however, assured Ramus by the king 
and queen-mother, and he found asylum m the royal 
palace at Fontainebleau.^ Amid the beautiful sur- 
roundings of this place and the treasures of the royal 
library, he forgot everything except his studies, until 
enemies discovered his whereabouts. Then he es- 
caped death at their haiids only by fleeing again, and 
for a time was pursued from pillar to post. Finally, 
in March of the next year (1563), the peace of 
Amboise enabled him to enter Paris again, and live in 
quiet for a few years. 

Upon his return Ramus without difficulty got 
back his principalship at Presles and his chair in the 
Royal College. At the beginning of the academic 
year he delivered his famous address upon the twelve 
years of his work as a professor in the College of 
France.^ In it he tells of his intention to gather up 
the threads of his writing once more and indulges the 
vain hope that war will never again disturb the liberal 
arts, 'the daughters of Peace.' During the next few 
years he published his works on physics and mathe- 
matics already mentioned ^ and completed a work 

' Freigius, op. cit., pp. 26 ff. ; Ramus himself in his Oratio de sua 
profcssione also furnishes us with full details of his stay here. 
- Oratio de sua profcssione liheralium artium (1563). 
* See pp. 61 f. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 07 

upon the metaphysics ^ of Aristotle. But the theologi- 
cal and medical faculties could not forget his address 
upon the reform of the university, and were on the 
lookout to catch him upon the hip. More implacable 
than any other was his inveterate enemy, Carpen- 
tarius, who constantly hounded him with pamphlets. 
To that blatant individual Ramus, as usual, paid no 
attention, but his distinguished pupil Arnaud d'Ossat, 
afterward a cardinal, did reply with a strong defense of 
the dialectic of his master,- which Carpentarius an- 
swered only with a storm of abuse. Moreover, the 
Jesuits,"^ who had been vainly endeavoring to have 
their College of Clermont recognized by the univer- 
sity, had at length found a complaisant rector ^ 
who was willing to issue the 'letters of scholarity.' ^ 
Ramus was among those who were active in their 
opposition to the recognition of this order, and in the 
suit before the parlement that resulted, he was one of 
the two advocates chosen to oppose them. But the 

^ Scholarnm metaphysicarum libri quattuordecim in totidem 
metaphysicos libros Aristotelis (1565). 

2 Expositio Arnaldi Ossati in disputationem Jacobi Carpentarii 
de methodo (1564). 

^ See p. 3. 

■* Julien de Saint Germain (1564). 

^ Crevier, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 165 f. 



88 PETER RAMUS 

parlement was afraid of the Guises, who allied them- 
selves with the cause of the Jesuits/ and yielded to 
pressure. This brought Ramus further enemies, 
whereas Carpentarius, who had toadied to these 
powerful foes during the contest, won over thereafter 
the Cardinal of Lorraine as his 'Maecenas.' 

A more formidable controversy for Ramus was 
occasioned by the seating of Carpentarius in a chair 
of mathematics at the College of France, although 
he w^as quite ignorant of the subject. The professor- 
ship had through politics been given in the first place 
to Dampestre Cosel, a mediocre mathematician 
from Sicil}^, who could speak neither Latin nor 
French, but upon the request of Ramus and his other 
colleagues that he be examined, this incumbent un- 
dertook to sell the position to Carpentarius. This 
was an unheard of proposition, but was probably sug- 
gested by the Cardinal of Lorraine and connived at 
by the court. ^ Although ignorant both of Euclid 
and of the language in which that author wrote, 
Carpentarius was appointed in February, 1566, and 
refused to submit to the examination which the king 
had established by edict. When the case was brought 

* Du Boulay, op. cit., I. VI, p. 521. 

* See Or alio Initio si4<z professionis habila (1566), fol. 7 v. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH Sy 

before the parlement, the professor-elect admitted his 
ignorance, but declared there were other subjects upon 
which he could temporarily lecture and that he could 
become posted on mathematics 'within three days.' ^ 
He further pleaded his service to the university, 
Catholicism, and the Aristotelian philosophy so effec- 
tively that the parlement provisionally confirmed 
the appointment and gave him three months within 
which to prepare himself to teach mathematics.^ 
But even these terms were not favorable enough for 
Carpentarius. Accordingly he induced the corrupt 
recorder to change the decree of parlement so that it 
would read that he should begin the study of Euclid 
ivithin three months and set no limit to the time when 
he should be prepared to lecture, and that, instead of 
teaching mathematics and philosophy, he should 
teach mathematics or philosophy. As a result, 
Carpentarius began by lecturing on Aristotle's De 
Coelo and then turned to the Commentaries on Plato 
b}' Alcinous, and never touched mathematics." He 
further presumed to demand a fee from his students, 
a proceeding quite contrary to the spirit of the College 

' Schol. Math., 1. 1, p. 21. 

^ Collect. pr(Efat., p. 544; Du Boulay, op. cil., t. VI, pp. 650 ff. ; 
Schol. Math., 1. II, p. 63. 



90 PETER RAMUS 

of France and hitherto unknown in the history of the 
institution. This last step was too much for Ramus 
to endure, and he straightway addressed a Remon- 
strance to the Privy Council} 

The fear of the Guises, however, was too strong to 
permit any appeal to be effective, and Ramus, for 
all his pains, succeeded only in changing the envy of 
his rival to a mortal hatred. The spite of Carpenta- 
rius soon showed itself in a series of libels and accu- 
sations against Ramus,^ which grew so scurrilous 
and serious that the reformer was forced to have his 
defamer prosecuted and forced to retract.^ There- 
upon Carpentarius endeavored to have him mobbed or 
assassinated, but, thanks to the courage and presence 
of mind of Ramus, these attempts also failed. 

About this time (September, 1567) the Guises had 
succeeded in fanning another civil war into flames. 
Ramus escaped the massacre that ensued by fleeing 
to the camp of the Protestants at St. Denis, and 
while not taking part, he was a spectator at the in- 

^ Remonstrance an conseil prive (1567). The most important 
portions of this are quoted by Waddington, pp. 411-417. It 
gives a good account of the details that have been outlined above. 

2 See Jacobi Carpentarii admonitio ad Thessalum (Paris, 1567); 
/. Aurati Poematia, I. IV, pp. 275 £f. 

' Nancel, p. 63. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH QI 

decisive battle that took place there. He did, how- 
ever, render a conspicuous service to the Protes- 
tants through his eloquence in inducing the Ger- 
man troopers who had been summoned to the aid of 
Conde and Coligny to continue to serve for less 
than one third the sum they had been promised.^ 
Soon after this the Peace of 1568 enabled Ramus to 
reenter Paris and take up his duties once more, but 
he was scarcely settled before he perceived another 
storm brewing. He thereupon persuaded the king to 
grant him leave of absence to visit the chief universi- 
ties of Germany and Switzerland, as he had long hoped 
to do. Before leaving, however, he drew up his will 
and patriotically left the bulk of his fortune to found 
a chair of mathematics at the College of France.^ 
He then wrote a most eloquent Farewell Letter to the 
University of Paris.^ 

The travels of Ramus during the next two years 
(1568-15 70) were nominally a species of thinly dis- 
guised expatriation, but they soon took on the 
character of almost a triumphal journey and a matter 

' Brantome, Homines illustres, disc. LXVI ; De Thou, op. cit., 
1. XLII. 

^ This will is given in full by Waddington, op. cit., pp. 326-328. 

^ Petriis Ramus rector i et Academics Parisiensi (1868). See 
Collect. Prcef., epist., etc., p. 206. 



92 PETER RAMUS 

of great moment to the entire scholastic world. ^ A 
review of them in detail would furnish a very fair 
picture of the intellectual and religious activities in 
some of the most important centers in northern 
humanism and the Reformation.'- With two of his 
pupils as secretaries, Ramus visited a large part of 
Germany and Switzerland, and conferred with the 
most renowned scholars m classics, mathematics, 
logic, and especially theology. He continued after- 
ward to correspond with those he visited, and the 
letters, as far as they have been preserved, form a 
thesaurus of source material on the movements of the 
sixteenth century. The 'French Plato,' as Ramus 
was called, was received with great consideration by 
all the universities and cities to which he came. At 
times, of course, he found opponents, but he made 
more partisans, and the dissemination of his philos- 
ophy left academic Germany divided in two camps, 
the Aristotelians and the Ramists. His reputation 
was fully maintained, and efforts were made at sev- 
eral places to hold him permanently. Well-endowed 
chairs were offered him in the Palatinate, Westphalia, 

1 See especially the account of Banosius (pp. 26 ff.), one of the 
secretaries. 

' See pp. 5 ff. . . ,- 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 93 

and even Poland, Transylvania, and Hungary. While 
there is reason to believe he might have liked to 
lecture at Strassburg, Heidelberg, or some other uni- 
versity near the French border, in order to impress 
Paris with his overwhelming success, he generally 
declined the offers that were made him. It may be 
that he did this for the same reason he had assigned 
when called by the University of Bologna half a 
dozen years before: "I am a Frenchman, and it is 
through the favor of the king of France that I have 
pursued my studies for many a long year. I belong, 
therefore, entirely to my country and my king." ^ 

Under the safe conduct of the king,^ Ramus 
moved almost directly east across France, and came 
first to Strassburg. Here he was met by a large 
delegation and acclaimed like a prince of the blood. 
He was entertained at the home of the famous 
humanist, Sturm,^ with whom he had corresponded. 
The two friends were now able to discuss personally 

1 CoUectan. prcBJal., pp. 195 and 198. '^Op. ciL, p. 190. 

' It was supposed until recently that Sturm and Ascham were 
complete converts to Ramism, but Guggenheim (Beilrdge, pp. 141 ff.) 
has shown by a letter that passed between the two scholars that 
while they were influenced by the new dialectic and were some- 
what sympathetic, they did not altogether approve his criticism 
of Aristotle and Cicero. 



94 PETER RAMUS 

the study of the liberal arts, the education of youth, 
the nature and effect of rewards, and other problems 
in school and educational work generally. The pro- 
fessors of the university and the teachers in the gym- 
nasium ^ gave Ramus a public proof of their esteem 
by tendering him a banquet. 

Next, the reformer followed the Rhine south to 
Basel.^ He visited Freiburg on the way, and, meet- 
ing there the mathematician, Schreckfuchs, studied 
in his library a marvelous celestial globe of brass 
arranged according to the system of Copernicus. 
At Basel he sojourned for the rest of 1568 and most of 
the following year. Here he met Freigius, professor 
of rhetoric, who became one of his most devoted dis- 
ciples.^ He also found a number of his former pupils, 
including the printer, Hervagius, and the professors 
Jerome Wolf and Theodor Zwinger, and became 
acquainted with the grammarian, Felix Platter,* 

1 See p. 3. 

2 The details of his visit here are taken mostly from his eulogy 
on the people of Basel in his work known as Basil ca. See pp. 99 f. 

* We are indebted to Freigius for one of our most authentic 
accounts of the life and work of Ramus. See footnote i on p. 19. 

^ This was the son of that Thomas Platter, who, at his son's re- 
quest, wrote the autobiography that has shed so much light on 
the schools and education of the sixteenth century. See Monroe's 
Thomas Platter. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 95 

and the theologian, Samuel Grynaeus, and with many 
scholars and men of prominence. The hostess of 
Ramus in Basel, however, was the pious Catherine 
Petit. This lady had entertained Calvin while he 
was writing his Institutes of Christianity,^ and was 
filled with memories of that great leader. Ramus 
was also much impressed at Basel by a memorial of 
another famous reformer, — the monument erected 
to the wise and pious (Ecolampadius. At this center 
of Protestantism, he seized the opportunity for in- 
creasing his knowledge of theology by listening to the 
lectures of Sulzer ^ and Coccius on the Old and New 
Testaments in the original languages, and here laid 
the groundwork of his posthumous Commentaries on 
the Christian Religion? He likewise made it con- 
venient, before leaving this part of Switzerland, to 
confer at Ziirich with Bullinger and Simler, leaders 
in Swiss Protestantism, and get their advice and that 
of the other theologians upon his projected treatise. 
Ramus did not, however, give all his productive 

1 See p. 10. 

2 His pleasant relations at Basel were marred only by a contro- 
versy with this same Sulzer, and probably for this reason he alludes 
to the tolerant Brandmiiller as the real successor of (Ecolampadius. 
See Bernus, Pierre Ramus a Bale (Paris, 1890). 

^ Commentariorum de religione Christiana libri quattuor (1576). 



96 PETER RAMUS 

time ill Switzerland to theology. While at Basel, 
one of the centers of printing, he produced two of his 
chief treatises on mathematics, and combined his 
views on grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, physics, and 
metaphysics into a single work, Studies in the Liberal 
Arts} Here also were published the letters that had 
sprung from a rather unpleasant controversy over 
dialectic Avith Schegk,^ professor of philosophy at 
Tiibingen. It was from Basel also that he wrote 
Sturm he would accept a position in the gymnasium, 
in order to make known his method. But in spite 
of the recommendation of that scholar and the Protes- 
tant tendencies of Ramus, his services were declined 
by the conservative authorities, on the ground that 
he was 'not an Aristotelian.' 

He visited other centers in Switzerland and met 
many prominent scholars, theologians, and reformers 
in each, but in no other place was his stay very long. 
He next went north along the Rhine to Heidelberg, 
where he sojourned for some time at the home of 
Tremellius, the professor of Hebrew, from whom he 

' S choice in liber ales cries (1569). 

- P. Rami et Jacobi Schecii epistolcB, in quibus de arlis logicce 
Inslitutione agitur (1569). Two years later at Lausanne he pub- 
lished on the same subject Petri Rami Defensio pro Aristotele 
u.hersus Jac. Schecium. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 97 

acquired a complete defense of the reformed theol- 
ogy.^ He met here also the leading professors and 
councilors of the Palatinate, and was invited by the 
elector, Frederick III, to accept a temporary place 
in the university.^ While the faculty of 'arts' pro- 
fessed to admire Ramus personally, they resisted 
this appointment to the utmost. Although devoted 
Protestants, they were still too conservative to sym- 
pathize with a man who taught his own philosophy, 
which was quite 'opposed to the truth and the doc- 
trine of Aristotle.' The sovereign exerted his author- 
ity to the utmost, and, in spite of repeated remon- 
strances, Ramus was announced to lecture on Cicero's 
oration. For Marcellus. Two factions also appeared 
among the students, and every obstacle was thrown 
in the way of his lecturing,^ but in the end, owing to 
his eloquence, his instruction on this subject was 
enthusiastically received. When, however, by spe- 
cial request, Ramus undertook to lecture on dialectic, 
a more serious insurrection broke out in the fanatical 

^ Letter to Sturm, October or November, 1569, 

^ Letter to Zwinger, October 30, 1569. 

* Even the steps to the lecture platform were taken away, and 
Ramus mounted to his rostrum only by the aid of one of the French 
students, and the lecture was at first interrupted with hisses, hoots, 
and stamping. 



98 PETER RAMUS 

faculty, and the elector was forced to suspend the lec- 
tures for a time. Whereupon, writes Ramus to his 
friend Zwinger : — 

"Seizing the opportunity of disengaging myself, I 
told the elector that there was some ground for the 
opposition, since, if I should continue to teach a 
month longer, a revolution in studies would neces- 
sarily result. However, I remarked how surprising 
it was in my judgment that, when the legitimate child, 
the noble daughter of the University of Heidelberg, 
was brought back by me to her own home, she should 
be treated as a stranger, and repudiated by the pro- 
fessors of the university. The prince asked my 
meaning, and I answered that I had reference to the 
true dialectic, as it had formerly been interpreted at 
Heidelberg by Agricola with the applause of Ger- 
many, France, and Italy." ^ 

However, this very fear of the Ramistic dialectic 
and strenuous opposition to it at both Strassburg and 
Heidelberg, the great centers of humanism, shows 
how great its influence was becoming. In fact, the 
visit of Ramus to Germany and Switzerland must be 
regarded as epoch-making in the history of human- 
ism, Aristotelianism, and theology. His experience 

1 Letter to Zwinger, January 22,, 1570. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH QQ 

in other places was similar to that already described. 
When he left Heidelberg, a couple of months later, he 
first journeyed north to Frankfurt, and thence south- 
east to Nuremberg and Augsburg. At all these 
places he held intercourse with the leading humanis- 
tic, mathematical, and scientific scholars, and visited 
the chief libraries and museums. In Augsburg he 
became acquainted with the famous Tycho Brahe, 
who, although but little more than a boy at the time, 
had already made numerous astronomical observa- 
tions and begun the hypotheses upon which his later 
renown rests. 

Now, however, hearing rumors of approaching 
peace, Ramus hastened south rapidly through Swit- 
zerland to Geneva, in the hope of reaching France 
sooner. He was kindly received by Geneva, although 
considerable opposition to his dialectic had arisen 
through his correspondence with Theodore Beza, the 
successor of Calvin in the administration of the city. 
Upon request he gave a brief course here upon 
Cicero's Catilinarian orations according to his 
method. He made a profound impression, and many 
of the students adopted his logic at the time. Ramus 
next went a little out of his way to Lausanne to pub- 
lish some of his works, especially the discourse in 



100 PETER RAMUS 

honor of the people of Basel. ^ In this city again he 
met a number of humanists and theologians and gave 
lectures on dialectic, but soon felt impelled to start 
back to Paris. 

Upon his return to the university, Ramus found 
that his enemies had not been idle during his ab- 
sence.^ In the face of the general amnesty, they had 
induced the timorous king to interpret the agreement 
in such a way as to bring Ramus under the head of 
'deserters from the faith,' who had forfeited their 
privileges in Paris. Two obscure men had been 
installed in his positions at the College of Presles 
and the College of France, respectively,^ and realizing 
that the Cardinal of Lorraine had abandoned him 
to his persecutors, he appealed to his old comrade 
and protector in this letter of protest : — 

"It was in your early youth, nearly thirty years 
ago, that our mutual attachment arose. I was 
myself very young then, but since those days I 
have never ceased to publish and celebrate through 
all the world your friendship for me. However, 
such is the misfortune of the times that to-day 
certain evil-minded persons go about declaring that 

1 De Thou, 1. XLIV to the year 1568. 

2 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, pp. 658 ff. and 712 ff. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH lOI 

the Cardinal of Lorraine is removing Peter Ramus 
not only from his chair at the Royal College, to which 
he was appointed by King Henry upon your nomi- 
nation, but also from the principalship of the College 
of Presles, — that is to say, from the fruit and 
recompense of all my former labors. After complet- 
ing my study and reform of the first five liberal arts, 
and showing an equal zeal, or even greater, for the 
advancement of the last two, I had reason to expect 
a dififerent treatment. Wherefore, in the name of the 
white hairs that advise us both that death is not far 
distant, do not suffer the end of our relations to be 
so vastly different from the commencement, and from 
a smiling beginning to close the whole course of our 
years with so sad a finale. Do better than this; 
condemn me rather to the hard and unremitting task 
of forging and polishing the sciences. I would cheer- 
fully do more than that, and such a vengeance would 
be more becoming your magnanimity and high-mind- 
edness." ^ 

But he was not destined to receive either favor or 
satisfaction from his former patron. In reply, the 
cardinal evaded the issue by reproaching him in a 
friendly way for not coming to see him, and then 

1 See Colled, prafat., epist., pp. 254 ff. 



lOl PETER RAMUS 

accused him of ingratitude, impiety, and rebellion.^ 
Taking this as a sincere expression, Ramus wrote 
another letter. He explained his not seeing the car- 
dinal in person on the ground that he would have run 
grave risks in so doing. As to 'ingratitude,' he 
declared that he had, ' through his own labors and the 
sweat of his brow,' shown himself worthy of the chair 
bestowed upon him, and that he would long since 
have resigned and accepted the better endowed chair 
at Bologna, had he not hoped by remaining to show 
his appreciation of past favors. As to 'impiety,' his 
religious change should not be considered an apos- 
tasy, but a return to the truth of the Gospel and the 
primitive church which the cardinal himself had 
praised at the Colloquy of Poissy. With regard to 
'rebellion,' he insisted that his flight to St. Denis 
was the only way in which he could escape assassina- 
tion and that he had not borne arms in the battle - 
against the government, and that he had soon left the 
country for his visit to Germany and Switzerland. 
He further besought the cardinal that, instead of 
descending to such petty matters, he should allow him 
to complete his treatises on the two remaining liberal 
arts and then devote the rest of his life to a study of 

1 See footnote on p. loi. * See pp. 90 f. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUTION, AND DEATH 103 

the Scriptures, and that the prelate himself should 
turn to the more holy occupation of establishing 
through the income of one of his numerous abbeys an 
association of scholars who should carefully translate 
both testaments into Latin and the vernacular, and 
make a systematic arrangement of the principles of 
Christian doctrine and practice.^ But the intriguing 
cardinal had no time for such an ultramundane 
program, and began to find his old friend not 
only a nuisance, but possibly an obstacle to his 
ambitions. Without more ado, he refrained from 
interfering with the program of the reformer's ene- 
mies, and on the 15th of December, 1570, Ramus 
was excluded from active teaching and administra- 
tion in the university. 

In these extremities Ramus thought of retiring to 
Geneva, where many would have been glad to see him 
installed as a professor, and he asked a friend to sound 
Beza, the head of the government of that city. But 
Beza clearly, though politely, repulsed his overtures 
upon the excuse that there was no vacancy in the 
faculty and the university had no funds to establish 
another chair. He added what was probably his 
real animus, that he was inflexibly attached to Ari»- 

* See Collect, prcefal., episL, pp. 255 ff. 



104 PETER RAMUS 

totle in logic and all other studies. Ramus was thus 
forced to give up all hopes in this direction, and fell 
into the depths of despair. But at this moment 
another old schoolmate, the Cardinal of Bourbon, who 
had become the chancellor of the university, inter- 
ceded for the reformer with the queen-mother, and 
secured for him an honorable compromise. It was 
arranged that he should have his titles as principal 
at Presles and as professor in the Royal College re- 
stored to him, and that his salary in the latter capac- 
ity should even be doubled, but that he should retire 
from active service and give his time to writing and 
translation. 

Ramus joyfully accepted these conditions, and in 
1 571 settled down at the College of Presles to com- 
plete and revise all the liberal arts. But his perse- 
cutors were not yet satisfied. They continually 
maintained that the very presence of a Huguenot pro- 
fessor was keeping proper-minded parents from send- 
ing their sons to a university infected with heresy.^ 
Carpentarius further attempted to persuade his col- 
leagues in the College of France that the reputation of 
having a heretic on the staff was injuring the insti- 
tution, and threatened them with the wrath of the 
1 Du Boulay, op. cit., t. VI, p. 669. 



CONVERSION PERSECUTION, AND DEATH I05 

Cardinal of Lorraine and the suppression of the col- 
lege, in case the offender were not expelled. ^ 

It must have become more and more evident that 
Ramus was doomed. His enemies would obviously 
be satisfied with nothing short of his banishment or 
death. Among those who realized this was his 
friend, Jean de Montluc, Bishop of Valence, who 
seems to have been a Protestant at heart and often 
proved a good friend to the reformers.- It is not 
unlikely that he had heard rumors of an impending 
massacre of the Huguenots, and had especial fears for 
Ramus. At any rate, it is known that he tried to 
attach that reformer to his embassy, when on the 
17th of August, 1572, he was sent to persuade the 
Poles to accept the French king's brother as their 
sovereign. Ramus had some scruples about under- 
taking the mission ^ and thus was left in the city 
during the terrible slaughter of St. Bartholomew's, 
which began just a week later. 

It was not, however, until the third day, the 
twenty-sixth, when most of the excesses were over, 
that Ramus met his death, and the outrage seems to 

1 Carpentarius, Orationes (1568). 

* Dareste, Essai sur Fr. Hotman, p. 9. 

» Banosius, op. cit., p. 18. 



Io6 PETER RAMUS 

have been a piece of private revenge on the part of 
Carpentarius rather than a result of the general 
massacre.^ Hired assassins, led by a tailor and a 
sergeant, forced their way into the College of Presles 
and at length found Ramus in his little study on the 
fifth floor. He was devoting his last moments to 
prayer, and, as the old man rose from his knees, his 
venerable dignity seemed for a moment to have 
overawed the intruders. Seeing, however, that he 
could hope for neither pity nor mercy, he commended 
his soul to God and sought forgiveness for his trans- 
gressions. If we may believe his biographers,^ his 
last utterance was strangely like that of his Master 
on Calvary. "Pardon these wretched men, my God, 

1 Waddington devotes a chapter (IX) to this very Hkely supposi- 
tion. Besides the testimony of Nancel (p. 74), who declares that 
the murder was contrary to the wishes of the king and queen- 
mother, he bases his further proof upon the unanimity of all 
historians, especially those who were contemporary, and upon 
the character of Carpentarius and his writings. Carpentarius 
had been reared by Galland in hatred of all innovations ; he was 
the only man at the time systematically writing against Ramus ; 
his ignorance had been exposed and his pride injured by Ramus 
in the matter of his assumption of the chair of mathematics in the 
Royal College; and his constant attempts afterward to explain 
the death of Ramus as due to public feeling and as a just punish- 
ment, look suspicious. 

'^ See Banosius, pp. 34 f. ; Nancel, pp. 74 ff. 



CONVERSION, PERSECUnON, AND DEATH 107 

for they know not what they do ! " Shot through the 
head and pierced with a sword, he was flung from the 
window. His fall was somewhat broken by a pro- 
jecting roof, and the body fell palpitating into the 
courtyard of the college. There further indignities 
were heaped upon the body, and it was dragged with a 
rope through the streets until the Seine was reached, 
where a surgeon struck off the head, and the trunk was 
cast into the river. Later it was drawn ashore again 
and hacked to pieces on the banks of the Seine. 



CHAPTER V 

General Principles and the Organization of 
Education 

During his stormy career Ramus had demon- 
strated in his practice at the two colleges he served, 
and formulated in the textbooks he had written upon 
the liberal arts and theology, the way to an education 
of broader scope and greater efficiency. His chief 
aim was to spare the student the barrenness and need- 
less difficulties that he himself had been obliged to 
face. As we have seen, his denunciation of Aristotle 
grew out of the formal dialectics and senseless dis- 
putations that passed for an education during his 
studentship at the College of Navarre. Accordingly, 
he turned from the whole system in disgust. He pro- 
ceeded to divest himself of scholastic philosophy and 
strove to rationalize the training afforded by the 
schools. He declares : — 

"It was my constant study to remove from the 
path of the liberal arts the briers and rocks, and all 
intellectual obstacles and retardations, and to make 

io8 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES 109 

even and straight the way, in order to arrive more 
easily not only at intelligence, but the practice and 
use of the liberal arts." ^ 

Without explicitly discussing the ultimate meaning 
and value of education, then, Ramus wished to im- 
prove the material studied, and to render the meth- 
ods of acquisition easier and more interesting. He 
struggled to free all the arts from the barbarism into 
which they had degenerated by selecting, arranging, 
and presenting their content according to some defi- 
nite plan. The principles for these reforms may be 
summed up in three key-words, — nature, system, and 
practice.^ 

While he nominally sought his guidance with 
complete independence of thought and investiga- 
tion, he seems to have borrowed this trinity of ideals 
from Quintilian, whose rhetorical work was most 
influential among the humanists.^ Of the three 
principles mentioned, the first appHes more to the 
determination of content and the last of method, 
while the second comes somewhat into consideration 
in both connections. His standardization for the 

^ See Remonstrance an conseil prive, pp. 27 f. 
^ Natura, ratio, exercitatio. See Instit. dial., I, 2. 
' See Instit. Oral., Ill, 2. These principles were, however, 
probably used first by Aristotle. 



no PETER KAMUS 

subject matter, then, he finds in the observation of 
nature. For example, the material for grammar or 
language study he desires to have derived from 
actual usage, — the ancient tongues from the classi- 
cal writers, and the modern from the speech of the 
people. Similarly, he holds that logic should be 
based upon observation of the human mind, and 
natural sciences upon the investigation of nature. 
The application of this principle will be shown defi- 
nitely in his treatment of the different liberal arts. 

When the subject matter has been obtained, he 
holds that it must be thoroughly sifted and arranged. 
The principles for system, or arrangement, he seems 
to have taken from Aristotle, and the laws for defin- 
ing and organizing the various subjects of study 
may be termed universality, homogeneity, and prim- 
acy of the general} His dialectic works describe 
these underlying standards in full, but in his other 
important treatises he also states them, though with- 
out much discussion.- This shows how rigidly he 

1 Kara iravT6<i, KaO' auro, and Kud oAou ; see A nalytica Hystera, 
4. The Latin forms are dc oniiii, per se, and immrsalitcr pritnum. 
Ramus may have been more influenced in this by Vives's works 
and Sturm's lectures on logic, both of which were in agreement with 
tlrii; Aristotelian scheme. 

^ See preface to Scholce in liberales artes, etc. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES III 

applied the rules of real logic to all subjects,' altliuugli 
he strenuously objected to the stereotyped scho- 
lastic dialectic, which had so restricted the content 
and method of the liberal arts. While the applica- 
tion and elaboration of these principles of 'system' 
will be made clearer as each one of the liberal arts is 
treated, it may be well to elucidate them in general 
here. 

In the first place, the law of 'universality' is that 
every precept must be in keeping with truth, not 
only in some instances, but always. It must neces- 
sarily, and not accidentally, be true; its validity 
must be incontrovertible. For the arts must have a 
sure basis ; they must, in accordance with Plato's doc- 
trine,^ rest upon ideas, since they are not created, but 
have always existed. Judged by this principle, much 
of scholasticism, especially in dialectics, would be 
found invalid, since it would not be universally 
applicable. For instance, the geometrical proposi- 
tion that ' the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal 
to two right angles ' is valid, but the statement that 
'every angle of a triangle is equal to sixty degrees' 

' See Remonstrance an conseil prive, p. 27. 

■^ This reference to Platonic idealism is found in the ScIwIcb 
rhetoricce,lX., ^S3- See Plato, Republic, Book VI; Pheedrus, 2^6 
ff. ; Meno, 80 ff. ; etc. 



112 PETER RAMUS 

would not hold, since it would not apply to isosceles 
or scalene triangles.^ Thus this standard eliminates 
all fallacies and inaccuracies, and is called by Ramus 
'the law of truth.' His second law, that of 'homo- 
geneity,' is that all precepts must be germane to the 
subject and to each other. For example, Aristotle 
states that it would be ' unarithmetical ' to speak of 
size in arithmetic, and ' ungeometrical ' to deal with 
number in geometry. Similarly, it is invalid to treat of 
rhetorical figures in grammar, or of the parts of speech 
in rhetoric. The boundaries between the arts should 
be carefully marked so that clarity may be maintained, 
and, since this principle defines the province of each 
subject. Ramus names it 'the law of justice.' The 
third rule is deductive and maintains that the general 
should precede and the particular should follow. - 
In other words, whatever applies universally through- 
out a subject should be stated at the outset of the 
exposition, and only then. For if the particular is 
stated first, it will not be characteristic of the entire 
class ; and if the universal is postponed, it will have 
to be repeated in each particular case. To use the 

1 Cf. Scholce grammatics, I, 7. 

* Ramus expresses it tersely as generaUa non speciatim specialia 
non generatim. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES II3 

former illustration, 'the sum of the angles of a tri- 
angle is equal to two right angles ' is a general charac- 
teristic of the figure ; it should be stated once at 
the beginning, and not repeated each time in deal- 
ing with equilateral, isosceles, and scalene triangles. 
This principle helps to produce a clearer arrangement 
of the material, and, through a natural and appro- 
priate development of each subject, greatly facilitates 
the memory of the pupil. Consequently it is denomi- 
nated by Ramus 'the law of wisdom.' 

Thus by means of these three laws our reformer 
undertook to criticize the mass of subject matter em- 
ployed in the education of the times. He added lit- 
tle to the curriculum, but, as Vives, Sturm, Melanch- 
thon, and other humanists had done in a less degree, 
he separated the wheat from the chaff. The useless 
and false material that had crept in through medieval 
commentaries, sophistry, and faith in authority, he 
was able, by means of the law of 'truth,' to detect 
and eliminate, and, by means of the laws of 'justice' 
and 'wisdom,' he found a more logical and more 
easily remembered arrangement, and rid the various 
subjects of confusion and tautology. In this respect 
his educational ideal of 'nature' and 'observation' 
may be said to have led to the further aim of clear- 



114 PETER RAMUS 

ing the liberal arts of falsehood, surreptitious matter, 
and repetitions. Or to state the matter positively, 
his ideal of 'system' implied that the subjects 
should be given a true, homogeneous, and simple 
exposition. 

In the matter of method, by means of his third 
principle, practice, Ramus also endeavored to make 
considerable improvement upon the current proced- 
ure. The scholastic instruction at the University 
of Paris consisted in lectures, repetitions, and dispu- 
tations. These methods were not bad in themselves, 
but serious abuses had grown up in them. Owing 
to the scarcity and great cost of textbooks, the lec- 
tures had come to consist mostly in lengthy dicta- 
tions from the authors under consideration. Such 
time as was given to exposition was largely wasted in 
literal explanations of the passages read, and there 
was a plethora of quibbles and hair-splitting distinc- 
tions in the discussion of all the liberal arts. The 
repetitions consisted in the mere mechanical recita- 
tion of rhymed rules and difficult definitions. But 
the most fixed and formal feature of the uni- 
versity method was, as Ramus declared,^ the dispu- 
tation. Thanks to the prominence of the scholastic 

1 See pp. 21 fE. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES II5 

dialectic and philosophy, these fruitless affairs seem 
to have been the chief goal of instruction from the 
very beginning of the course. 

As Erasmus and other humanists had foreseen, 
such methods spelled death for the hberal arts, and 
it was the increasing aim of Ramus to reform them. 
Like the humanists generally, he constantly attempted 
to simplify and render the subjects intelligible. In- 
stead of dallying over abstract rules, he advised that 
the principles be made clear by illustrations taken 
from the works of the classical authors and by imi- 
tation of them in written and oral exercises. But he 
went much further in rationalizing his pedagogy 
than Vives, Sturm, and any of the other humanists, 
although their works doubtless proved suggestive 
to him. He strove to render the general approach of 
humanism more specific, and laid out a definite pro- 
cedure for each portion of the school day.^ During the 
first hour the teacher is to lecture on the topic of the 
day, give the underlying principles, develop, and ex- 
plain, but make very little of the exercise a dictation. 
The next two hours are devoted by the pupils to 
working up, each by himself, what has been learned 

1 Pro philosophica Parisiensis academic? disciplina in Collect. 
Prcef., pp. 325 ff. 



Il6 PETER RAMUS 

during the lecture. The fourth hour is given to recit- 
ing to the teacher and making sure that the meaning 
and rules are understood and memorized. During 
the last two hours come a discussion and disputation, 
to discover whether the pupil can develop for himself 
what has been learned and can explain and apply 
it independently. This completes the work of the 
morning, and the afternoon is given to a similar 
combination of methods. 

Thus, according to the general plan of Ramus, five 
hours are required in every instance to impress and 
make of value what is learned in one hour. He defi- 
nitely held that the activities of the teacher should 
not close with his lecture and dictation, but that he 
should continue working with his pupils, hearing 
them recite and correcting false impressions, and 
especially stamping home the right principles by 
' practice' or application. Ramus here, as everywhere, 
seems to stress application and utility. 'Practice* 
plays the most important part in his method, since 
out of it grow the use of rules and the real value of the 
subject. He frequently makes a division of the daily 
routine into two chief phases, ' explanation ' and 'prac- 
tice.' The former term appears prominently in 
exposition, repetition, and even discussion, but he 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES II7 

held that it is in itself senseless and useless. "If 
we stop with the explanation," says he, "we are like 
the guests of Heliogabalus." ^ The real end and aim 
of all method is, in his mind, ' practice,' ^ since only 
in this way does the student learn to use his knowl- 
edge. There are two aspects to this process, — 
'analysis' and 'genesis.'^ The one consists in a 
critical dissection and testing to see how the author 
of the example conforms to the rules; the other in 
first copying the style and thought and producing 
something akin to the model, and in later creating 
independently and forming without outside help a 
work of one's own, which shall not only equal the 
model, but possibly surpass it. By means of this 
combination of analysis and synthesis there can be 
generated a genuine self -activity, and the pupils can 
be enabled to secure an excellent mastery of the sub- 
ject matter. 

In this way Ramus strove to make the instruction 
at the College of Presles more interesting, critical, 
and effective. Thanks to the 'explanation,' the stu- 

1 Schol. dial., IV, 189. An allusion to the banquet at which this 
emperor smothered the chief men of Rome in a shower of roses. 

'Schol. dial., XX, 604. 

» See ibid., VII, 262 ff. and 299 ff. ; Instil. dial.,llll, 360 ff. ; 
and Schol. rhel., XVIII, 381, etc. 



Il8 i PETER RAMUS 

dents were never forced to commit what they did not 
understand, and only so far as it was absolutely neces- 
sary did they merely learn and recite, but, by means 
of the twofold process of 'practice,' they became in- 
dependent and original. The procedure at which our 
French reformer aimed was in line with that of Vives, 
Sturm, and other humanists. These reformers gen- 
erally tended to abbreviate the theoretical 'explana- 
tion' and stress the real 'practice,' and to use for this 
purpose examples from the classical authors. But 
no one of them developed his position so clearly and 
systematically as Ramus, although he did not crys- 
tallize his curriculum and method into any such sharp 
division by years as did Sturm. In the next three 
chapters we shall see how these principles of con- 
tent and method worked out in the specific subjects 
of the liberal arts. 

Numerous pedagogical advantages could easily be 
prophesied for these principles of Ramus in content 
and method. They naturally augured clearness and 
brevity in the curriculum, and facility, interest, and 
economy to the student. We can, therefore, scarcely 
be surprised to learn that Ramus reduced the length 
of the course in the liberal arts to seven years. Three 
years, instead of five, or even seven (with Vives and 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES Up 

Sturm), were given to the languages or 'grammar,' 
and one year each to rhetoric, dialectic, mathematics, 
and physics. This curtailment of the years of study 
was, however, undoubtedly effected by Ramus not 
only through a better arrangement of the content, 
but by the fact that he would grant a much smaller 
number of holidays. With the exception of about 
thirty days, he believed in holding school the entire 
year.^ Under this system, therefore, the pupils, who 
were supposed to enter at eight, would have com- 
pleted their work in the liberal arts by the time they 
were fifteen, and, since Ramus holds elsewhere that 
the transition to the university should begin at this 
stage of their work,^ they would be able to complete 
their professional course in the latter institution at 
a comparatively early age. 

1 See pp. 46 and 64. ' See p. 84. 



CHAPTER VI 

The Content and Method of the Trivium 

Such were the general principles and laws that 
Ramus wished to follow in determining the content 
and method of the liberal arts and other subjects. 
He was thoroughly convinced of the validity and 
efficiency of these logical ideals, and felt that by 
applying them rigidly to each of the disciplines he 
could greatly clarify and simplif}' their study. The 
liberal arts of the times he divided into the 'exoteric,' 
which were the grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic of 
the old trivium, and the ' esoteric,' which corresponded 
roughly to the former quadrivium, and with him in- 
cluded mathematics {i.e. arithmetic and geometry), 
physics, metaphysics, and ethics. The 'exoteric' 
arts were, of course, easier of approach and of more 
general utility, and with them he began his reform. 
While 'dialectic,' or logic, has been shown to underlie 
the arrangement and presentation of them all, we will 
here take them up in order and turn first to grammar. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 121 

As far as grammar was concerned, at Paris in the 
time of Ramus the medieval textbooks and methods 
held complete sway. The Elegancies of Latin ^ by 
Valla had for almost a century been paving the way 
for an improvement of Latin writing, but the work 
was scarcely known in Paris. There Donatus and 
Priscian had been replaced by such works as the 
Doctrinale of .Alexander of Villedieu, which, for the 
sake of easy memorizing, were often written in bad 
verse. One of the most popular of these was the Rudi- 
ments of Despantere, which began its vogue about the 
time that Ramus was born. The most difficult and 
unintelligible presentation of grammar blocked the 
way to any real knowledge of the subject, and while 
the poets, like Vergil and Ovid, were able to persist 
and furnish some notion of style, the Latin prose 
writers were still generally forbidden as heathen. ^ 
In consequence, the most atrocious Latin was com- 
mon. The colloquial abominations of the schoolmen 
and the theologians, mixed with an extensive collec- 
tion of barbarisms and Gallicisms, were in general 
use in the higher schools. At times even the pro- 

1 EleganticB Latino;. See Voigt, Die Wiederlebung des clas- 
sischen Alterthums, II, 378. 

^ See Paulsen, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, pp. 24 f. 



122 PETER RAMUS 

fessors of the university were positively ungram- 
matical.^ Moreover^ the grammatical treatises of 
the day were inaccurate, repetitious, and filled with 
dialectic and metaphysical discussions quite foreign 
to the subject. 

We have already narrated ^ how, between the years 
1559 and 1562, in order to effect some reform in this 
subject, Ramus produced at least half a dozen works 
upon grammar. Three of these were devoted to 
Latin, and two to Greek, while the sixth treatise 
dealt with the vernacular.^ In each of these, accord- 
ing to his principle of 'nature,' he was guided by 
actual use. He did not set himself up as an arbiter 

1 Ramus even affirms {Schol. gram., II, 15) that ego amat seemed 
as correct to certain Sorbonists as ego amo. Probably the racy 
satire in the EpistolcB obscurorum virorum, while an exaggeration, 
had a real basis of fact. At any rate, a work in four volumes 
known as Grcecarmn institutionum rudimenia, which was published 
in Paris by George Mauropsedius only five years before the gram- 
matical works of Ramus began to appear, and is still in existence, 
exhibits the most barbarous blunders in its Latinity. 

2 See pp. 57 f. 

' His interest in his native language to the extent of producing 
vernacular treatises on both grammar and dialectic, at a time when, 
according to Pasquier, it was doubted whether it was "worth while 
to couch the arts in French," shows his progressive patriotism and 
modern spirit. He also demanded unceasingly a vernacular trans- 
lation of the Scriptures, and it is well known that he was ambitious 
lo see his native land build up a genuine national literature. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 123 

of speech, like Donatus and Priscian, but judged 
of the Latin and Greek by means of the classical 
authors, and of the French by the speech of the 
people.^ In the grammar of each language, he 
adopted a short and easy method according to the 
definite rules which obtain throughout his texts on 
the liberal arts,^ and thus eliminated most of the 
fallacies, impertinences, and repetitions of the exist- 
ing grammars. Also, in keeping with his plan, he 
endeavored to turn his 'explanation' into 'practice' 
as soon as possible.'^ The form in which the works 
themselves were written furnished a model of correct- 
ness and elegance that had been little known for 
centuries. 

The limitations of space forbid our even outlining 
the plan employed by Ramus in each of his grammati- 
cal treatises, but that used in his works on Latin,^ the 
most important language of the times,'' may be given 
here as an example of them all. In order to avoid 
repetition, in keeping with his principle of the 'pri- 

^ Schol. gram., II, 11 ff. See also p. no. 
' See pp. 109 £E. 
^ See pp. 1146. 

* I.e. the Grammaiicce LaiincB lihri quattuor, Rudimenta gram- 
maticce, and his extensive Scholce grammaticcs. See p. 57. 
'" See footnote 3 on p. 122. 



124 PETER RAMUS 

macy of the general,'^ he treats the subject deduc- 
tively. He begins with the most general statement 
possible, and defines grammar as 'the art of talking 
correctly.' "^ He thus establishes a definite and 
practical goal. Throughout he avoids all extraneous 
topics, and outlines the subject as clearly as possible. 
His first large division of grammar is into ' etymolog}^ ' 
and 'syntax,'^ for he scorns any such tautological 
heads as the 'orthography' of Quintilian, the 'anal- 
ogy' of Varro, or 'prosody,' which he deals with in 
rhetoric.^ 

In etymology he begins with a discussion of the 
letters and pronunciation. In the case of both 
these subjects Ramus attempted to institute reforms. 
He recommended the use of the characters j and v to 
represent the consonant sounds, that had up to that 
time been included in i and u and were subject to 
confusion with the vowels.^ They were, in conse- 

1 See p. 112. 

2 Grammatica est ars bene loquendi. See Gram. LaL, IV, Preface. 
^ Books I and II of Grammatica Latina are devoted to 'etymol- 
ogy' ; Books III and IV to 'syntax.' * See Schol. gram., II, lo ff. 

* His priority in this distinction is conceded by all his contempo- 
raries from Freigius (pp. 23 f.) and Nancel (pp. 39 f.), who enthu- 
siastically praise the step, to Scaliger {Scaligerana, p. 288), who 
considers it foolish and vexatious. See also Ramus himself {Schol. 
Gram., 1. II). 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRWIUM 12$ 

quence, for a long time known as ' the Ramist conso- 
nants.' He also made prevalent in the schools an 
exact and elegant pronunciation, although, as has 
been pointed out, this cost him a serious struggle 
with the Sorbonists.^ Next, he discusses syllables, 
and their formation and quantity, as well as accent 
and expression, and the origin and formation of 
words. 

Then he considers the parts of speech, which he 
again divides into two classes, — words with ' num- 
ber' and words without 'number.' Under the first 
head he groups substantives and verbs. ^ Substan- 
tives include pronouns and adjectives, as well as 
nouns, and have, as their distinguishing modifica- 
tions, gender and case. Instead of the five declen- 
sions, employed by Varro and grammars of the pres- 
ent day, Ramus groups his substantives under two 

^ See pp. 62 f. In French he also wished, Hke Etienne Dolet 
and other humanistic theorists, to introduce reformed spelling, but 
this step proved too radical, when the pronunciation of that lan- 
guage has differed so greatly in different sections of the country 
and from century to century. Even Pasquier (Leltrcs, 1. Ill, 4) dis- 
approves of this reform on the grounds stated above, and Ramus 
anticipated {Gram. Lai., VII, 56) that these objections would 
be made. 

2 The first part of Book I is devoted to 'substantives' and the 
second to 'verbs.' 



I 2b PETER RAMUS 

declensions, (i) that where the substantive has the 
same number of syllables in all cases, and (2) that 
where it has a different number. He further divides 
the ' equal-syllabled ' declension, according as -is ap- 
pears in the dative plural (as in the first and second 
declensions of our present-day Latin grammar), or 
does not; and the 'unequal-syllabled' declension he 
groups under two heads, which correspond respec- 
tively to our third declension and to our fourth and 
fifth. While, therefore, he really discriminates four 
declensions, it seems like a much simpler, easier, and 
more logical arrangement, and it enables him to treat 
the irregular nouns with the others.^ Last of all he 
deals with the indeclinables, among which he men- 
tions the cardinal numerals. 

The modifications of verbs he gives as tense and 
person. He makes the important modification of 
moods of little account, showing by a number of 
examples that there is no clear distinction in their 
meaning.^ The three chief tenses — present, past, 
and future — are explained, first for the finite moods 
and then for the infinitive. Here also he is able to 

^ In his larger work, Scholm grammatica, XIII, he also discusses 
the irregxilar adjectives. 
2 See Schol. gram., XIV. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 127 

treat irregularities and variations without a separate 
discussion. He also gives due attention to the gerund 
and the supine on the one hand, and to the participles 
on the other, treating the former as substantives, and 
the latter as verbs, instead of as separate parts of 
speech. Under their second modification, Ramus 
divides verbs into personal and impersonal. He 
does not distinguish the personal verbs, according 
to their variations, as inchoative, frequentative, and 
desiderative, since this seems to him to be valueless 
to the student, but he does divide them into active, 
passive, and deponent.^ In the matter of conjuga- 
tion he makes two classes, according as the future 
ends in -bo or -am. As, however, he subdivides both 
these classes, he practically distinguishes the four 
conjugations that are usually given now, although 
here again he does not treat the irregulars by them- 
selves. 

The second part of etymology, which deals with 
words that do not have number, is exceedingly brief. 
It bears upon the four indeclinable parts of speech, — 
adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjec- 
tions, — but the use of the last two is deferred until 
syntax is reached. 



128 PETER RAMUS 

Ramus then takes up syntax, which he defines as 
'the construction of words,' and deals with it under 
the main heads of ' agreement ' and ' government.' ^ 
Under both these divisions he again considers words 
with 'number' and words without 'number.' He 
groups under words with number the agreement of 
substantive with substantive, in which adjectives 
are included, and of verb with substantive. Under 
the former are given the rules for apposition and 
attributive, including all irregular cases where the 
word in apposition or the attribute refers to several 
substantives. Under the latter come the rules for 
subject and predicate. In the agreement of words 
without number, he deals first with adverbs that 
form the comparative and superlative degrees, and 
then with conjunctions, according to their place in 
the sentence. He also mentions 'asyndeton,' or 
omission of the conjunction, and 'polysyndeton,' or 
figurative repetition of the conjunction. 

The government of words with number considers 
nouns and verbs. Under the former come (i) the 
subjective, objective, and characteristic genitive, and 

1 Book III of the Grammatica Latina is mostly taken up with a 
consideration of Syntaxis convenientia and Book IV with syntaxis 
rectionis. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 29 

the ablative of characteristic, including adjectives 
in these constructions, and (2) the partitive genitive 
with comparatives, superlatives, and numerals, the 
genitive with adjectives of 'plenty and want,' and 
the dative of 'benefit or injure.' Under verbs are 
first treated transitive verbs, active and passive, 
intransitive verbs of 'acquisition' taking the dative, 
transitive verbs with the double accusative, and 
verbs of 'plenty and want' with the ablative or 
genitive. He then discusses the verb governing 
another verb, including an infinitive as the object 
of a verb of 'wish' or 'desire,' and a supine in -um 
after verbs of motion. He finally mentions the 
infinitival construction and the ten impersonal verbs 
that take the genitive. The government of words 
without number is very briefly considered. It deals 
with adverbs of 'place,' which take the genitive, and 
constructions with interjections and prepositions. 

The diagram on the next page may perhaps serve 
to make clearer the organization of grammar accord- 
ing to Ramus. An examination of the scheme reveals 
how completely Ramus, in determining the content 
and arrangement of his Grammar, has fulfilled his 
three principles of 'truth,' 'justice,' and 'wisdom.' 
He seems to have skillfully avoided all fallacious, 



130 



PETER RAMUS 



extraneous, and repetitious material. There like- 
wise appears here a new principle of organiza- 
tion, which savors more of a scholastic origin, and 
of which we shall hear again later. This is his 
'dichotomy,' or consistent division of each class into 
two species. 







words 


letters 
I syUables 
















r 


modifica- f gender 
tioas I case 
f equal- 

^ , . syllabled 

declensions i , 
unequal- 








with 


substan- 
tives 




Ety- 




number 




i syllabled 




mology 


parts of 




modifica- f tense 

tions I person 

1 . . / future in -bo 

conjugations < , ^ 
\ I future m -am 






speech 




Gfammar, 








! adverbs 

I conjunctions 


' the art of 






without 


talking cor- 






number 


2 f prepositions 
y interjections 


rectly,' is 








divided 










substantive with f apposition 
substantive I attributive 


■to: 








with 










number 


verb with subst.an- i subject 
tive I predicate 
adverbs of degree 






agreement 














without 


r asyndeton 




Syntax 






number 
with 


conjunctions | polysynde- 

t ton 
nouns / geiiitive and ablative 
I genitive and dative 






govemmer 


u 


number 


( transitive 
verbs ) . ^ 

<■ intransitive 










without f adverbs of place 




• 






numb( 


■r \ 


interjections and prepositions 



Like all schemata, this principle of division at times 
plays havoc with the natural order of things, and 
ine\ntably brings it about that matters closely 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 131 

related are sundered in presentation. Moreover, 
while in etymology this clever scheme covers every- 
thing of importance about the parts of speech, in 
syntax it omits much from their possible constructions. 
Yet it can easily be seen how much more convenient 
must have been such a brief and logical classification, 
and what an advance it marks over the grammars 
that were in use. It has eliminated most of the 
philosophical and dialectic ballast that had been 
slipped into syntactical instruction, and it has 
struggled more energetically even than the attempts 
of other humanists to free itself of scholastic influ- 
ence. It limits itself to grammar, pure and simple, 
and secures its illustrations from the usage of the 
best Latin writers. To clarity and definiteness of 
organization it added brevity and intelligibility of 
language. WHiile but few directions are given, they 
are all of immediate use, and the learner is soon led 
from dry and difficult rules to a vital study of the 
authors themselves. It must have called forth a new 
interest in the pupil, and made the work lighter and 
more rapid. The close connection of this grammar 
with the humanistic movement, as well as its remark- 
able success in the schools, is shown by the attempted 
union of it with the work of Melanchthon that ap- 



132 PETER RAMUS 

peared in a Philip po-Ramian Grammar,^ published 
twenty years after the death of our reformer. 

Ramus has also furnished us with some account of 
the way this subject of grammar should be taught. 
During the three years to be given to grammar,^ he 
seems to have intended that both Latm and Greek 
should be pursued, but that most emphasis should 
be given the former subject, and the arrangement 
in the four books of his Latin Grammar should be 
followed. After acquiring the letters and syllables 
and securing a little facility in reading and writ- 
ing Latin, the student was to take up the declen- 
sions and conjugations. But he was to be given 
few rules of syntax, and to learn more through ex- 
amples than formal granmiar. Easy illustrations 
and selections were to be taken from the Bucolics 
of Vergil and the Comedies of Terence, and from 
the simpler works of Cicero and Homer. The first 
year was to be given mainly to etymology and to 
teaching the pupils to express themselves and ac- 
quire a vocabulary. The second year these acquisi- 
tions were to be strengthened, deepened, and wid- 

' See Schmid, Encyclopddie, IV, p. 931. Cf. the Philippo- 
Ramists in dialectic, p. 217. 
* See pp. X18 f. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 33 

ened. Considerable practice and more complete 
mastery of the classical writers were to be afforded. 
In the third year etymology was to be reviewed, with 
illustrations furnished by the student himself, and 
syntax was to be completed. But in this ' explanation * 
and in ' practice ' ^ the knowledge and power of the 
youth were gradually to be increased. The models 
analyzed ^ were to be more and more extended, and, 
while dealing with them, the student was to learn 
from this usage of the best authors his etymology 
and syntax, orthography and prosody. Then, after 
the 'practice' in 'analysis,' the pupil was to take up 
'genesis,' or production on his own account.^ Here, 
too, there is a gradual increase in difficulty, beginning 
with mere imitation and later coming to more inde- 
pendent composition. 

Ramus seems to have spent much time and effort 
in elaborating the best methods of acquiring Latin 
and Greek. He felt that, whereas rhetoric and dia- 
lectic were to some extent natural gifts, a knowledge 
of these dead languages, both because of their intrin- 

' See pp. 116 f. 

2 An excellent illustration of the way in which this ' analysis ' 
may be carried on is given with the hexameter, O Melibcee, deu$ 
nobis hcEc otia fecit, in the Scholce dialecticcs, VII, 191. 

^See p. 117. 



134 PETER RAMUS 

sic difficulty and their being the key to the other 
arts, required the greatest industry and the most 
skilled instruction. Instead of basing his methods 
upon logic and formal grammar, Ramus hoped to 
lure the youths into a study of Latin and Greek 
by having them read the classical authors them- 
selves as soon as possible. In this respect he was 
not unlike the rest of the humanists, but he seems 
to have excelled them all in reducing to a minimum 
the number of years that must be spent in acquiring 
grammar. 

In the reforms he proposed for rhetoric, however, 
it is obvious that Ramus received more opposition 
than he did in the matter of grammar.^ The reason 
lying back of the storm that arose over his efforts to 
improve the teaching of rhetoric was that the author- 
ity upon which rhetoric was based was not merely 
that of some medieval writer, like Martianus Capella 
or Cassiodorus, but of Cicero and Quintilian them- 
selves. Even the humanists, although they were 
free from the scholastic verbosity and the digressions 
that appear in most of the textbooks of the times, 
taught rhetoric according to Cicero and Quintilian, 
and Melanchthon even intended his Institutions of 

1 See pp. 42 ff. Cf. also preface to the Scholce rhetorica. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRTVIUM 135 

Rhetoric as an introductory book to these authors.^ 
But Ramus did not bow down before even such 
great authorities. While he fully appreciated Cicero 
and QuintiHan, he held that they were not infallible 
and that their antiquity was not sufficient warrant 
for the abuses which the current textbooks had 
wrought in their name. He, accordingly, applied 
his laws of 'truth,' 'justice,' and 'wisdom' to the 
content of rhetoric, and rigidly rejected all that 
had been smuggled into the subject. Rhetoric, he 
declared, should be an art in itself, and not the 
exercising ground of another art.^ 

It seemed fallacious to him to combine rhetoric 
with grammar, as suggested by Quintilian, and he 
held it confusing to insist, with Cicero, that dialectic, 
philosophy, ethics, and various other subjects are 
essential to the orator as such. These matters, 
while improving to him as a man, have nothing to 
do with his rhetorical training. For rhetoric it is 
necessary only to know the rules of the art of speech, 
so as to use them effectively, in the same way that 
grammar consists in the use of correct language. 

1 See Messer, QuintUian als didaktiker (Neue Jakrhiicher fur 
Philologie und Pddagogik, 1897, pp. 415 f.). 
■^ Schol. rhet., I, pp. 233 flf. 



136 PETER RAMUS 

The content of what one is to say must not be con- 
fused, as in Cicero, with the outer form. 

Ramus, therefore, defines rhetoric as 'the art 
of effective speaking,' ^ and limits its divisions to 
'expression' and 'action.' He altogether ignores 
'invention' and 'arrangement,' together with 
'memory,' which is really a reflection of them, on the 
ground that these topics belong more properly to 
logic, even if all five divisions are given by the an- 
cient writers.^ Expression he defines as the elegant 
adornment of speech,^ and he divides it into ' tropes ' 
and 'figures.' The former of these refers to the 
figurative use of single words. It is subdivided 
into metonymy, irony, metaphor, and synecdoche, 
and some of these classes are still further divided. 
' Figures ' indicate a change of dress in a combina- 
tion of words, and are of two kinds, — figures of 
diction and figures of thought. Figures of diction 
have reference to a change in the outer form, indi- 
cated by a turn in the rhythm or meter, and are 
ordinarily treated under 'prosody,' which, as has 
been stated,^ Ramus does not recognize in grammar. 

1 Rhetorica est ars bene dicendi. 
^ Schol. rhet., I, p. 237 ; IX, p. 319. 
* Ibid., V, pp. 290 f . 
*See p. 124. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRTVIUM 137 

Under this head are enumerated nine figures of 
speech, of which the best known are paronomasia, 
climax, and anaphor. Figures of thought imply 
some movement of the mind expressed in speech, and 
include apostrophe, personification {prosopopoeia)^ 
rhetorical question, and other means of enlivening 
a speech and captivating an audience. 

His second main topic, 'action,' which deals with 
suitable delivery, had been valued up to this time, 
but had not been explicitly taught. With Ramus this 
subject comprises the use of the voice and gestures. 
Under the head of vocal control, he discusses how, 
both in the case of single words and of sentences or 
combinations of words, expression may be given 
through proper modulation to the various emotions, 
such as fear, grief, and sympathy. Under the other 
division he deals with all the details of effective ex- 
pression through gestures with the body, head, eyes, 
arms, hands, and fingers, and with the kind of 
gesticulation to be avoided. 

The rhetoric of Ramus may be outlined as more 
fully indicated in the analysis on the next page. 



138 



PETER RAMUS 



g ;3 d a d a 






a u 



i S 


beratK 
upatio 
missioc 
cession 


a Q, 


? S^ S.S 




1 s 


S 


.^ 


.a 




1 


1 


a 
3 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVroM 139 

Here, as in grammar, we find a clear and careful 
selection of the subject matter according to his 
three principles for content and his method of 
'dichotomy.' Rhetoric is strictly limited to the 
outer clothing of speech, and Ramus is absolutely 
silent about invention, arrangement, memorizing, 
parts of speech, syntactical construction, and all 
kindred topics that might seem to overlap dialectic 
and grammar. His position in abbreviating the 
material is again most radical. In comparison 
with the ancient writers and even his humanistic 
contemporaries, at first sight he gives the impression 
of scantiness and inadequacy. This is most apparent 
in the case of Melanchthon, who so closely approached 
him in grammar,^ but whose rhetoric held fast to all 
the traditional matter, especially as presented by 
Quintilian. The attitude of Ramus, however, is here 
consistent with his point of view in the other liberal 
arts, and he defends it on the score of good pedagogy. 
He is actuated by the principle of not overburdening 
the youth early in school life with a lot of abstract 
conceptions that mean little or nothing to him. His 
preference is to give him only such elements as can 
easily be grasped and leave all the rest to practice 

* See pp. 131 f. 



14© PETER RAMUS 

through reading. However, as we shall see/ it 
is only by means of dialectic that rhetoric attains 
to real completion. 

The method that Ramus advocated for teaching 
rhetoric, which was to be carried out in the fourth year 
of the course, was similar to that of grammar. It 
consisted in a close combination of theory and prac- 
tice. In 'explanation,' rules were progressively laid 
down, and ' practice ' in them was afterward attained 
by the twofold process of 'analysis' and 'genesis.'^ 
The pupil obtained some practice by analyzing the 
authors that had become known during his three 
years in grammar, but the model for the right use 
of the voice and gesticulation the teacher had him- 
self to furnish, since a literary passage is necessa- 
rily silent on these points. Wherever he could, the 
instructor quoted from actual speeches, and caUed 
attention to the laws of the art. He asked whether 
this kind of speech, that modulation of the voice, 
and such and such gestures, were most fitting. Even 
more than in the other arts, the spoken word was of 
the utmost importance, and for that reason the 
teacher had to be a practical orator, as well as 

^ See p. 148. 

2 See pp. 1 17 and 133. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 141 

versed in the precepts of rhetoric' After the 
'analysis,' 'genesis' in this subject was secured by 
working out a theme for delivery, at first according to 
a definite model and later with greater independence. 
To guard against superficiality, Ramus advised, as 
the ancient rhetoricians- had, that the oration be 
written down before it was delivered. While in the 
year devoted to rhetoric Ramus thought it an error 
to repeat the material acquired in grammar, he strove 
to see that the pupil did not lose the fruit of his ear- 
lier work. The teacher of rhetoric was to insist that 
pure speech be observed and thus amalgamate the 
result of both arts. This method of economy Ramus 
calls 'combined use,' and energetically defends its 
advantages against the protests and even the abuse 
of the conservatives.^ 

But the soul of the system and the true renown of 
Ramus rest in his reconstruction of dialectic. Said 

he himself: "If I had to pass judgment upon my 

i 
own works, I should desire that the monument raised 

to my memory should commemorate the reform of 

logic." ^ For it was his improvements in this sub- 

^ Schol. rhet., XVIII, 381. 
^Schol.dial.,XK, 603. 
*See pp. 159 and 165. 

* DialecticcB libri duo, Preface. 



142 PETER RAMUS 

ject that started the reformation that Ramus made 
in all the other liberal arts and served as his founda- 
tion for their organization. It gave his system and 
his texts an honorable position up to the eighteenth 
century, and has always constituted his most endur- 
ing title to the esteem of philosophers, scholars, 
and educators. The success of these reforms was won 
only after a long and stubborn fight, since dialectic 
had dominated all the medieval fields of knowledge 
and its grip upon the academic world was practically 
identical with that of Aristotle. For three centuries 
the cultural centers had been offering instruction in 
the Organon enlarged by the medieval commentaries, 
and had mixed its positions in with grammar, 
rhetoric, and metaphysics. Dialectic and other sub- 
jects had in consequence become a mere formal- 
ism, empty, dry, and much too difficult for youthful 
minds. The pupils became lost in the labyrinths. No 
effort was made by dialectic instruction to find truth 
or to prepare for life, but the end and aim was to 
prepare for school disputations. The humanists had 
tried hard to overcome this barren condition of logic, 
and, before the time of Ramus, Valla had written 
Dialectic Disputations, Agricola had produced his 
work On the Institutes of Dialectic, and Vives had is- 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM I43 

sued his three books On the Transmission of Learning. 
Although Paris remained faithful to the scholastic 
dialectic, and the theological faculty in particular 
opposed with all its might any sort of innovation, 
these efforts of the humanists had paved the way 
for independence of thought and the assertion of 
common sense. It was, however, the more vig- 
orous cultivation of the field by Ramus that was 
largely the cause for the germination of the seed 
which had been sown. 

The dialectic reform of Ramus falls naturally 
under the two heads which he himself distinguishes. 
These relate to the destructive or 'refutative' side 
of his work, in which he makes an examination of 
the current dialectic and refutes the errors that 
injure accuracy and proper arrangement in the 
art; and to the constructive or 'demonstrative' 
side, where he makes a dogmatic exposition of the 
art of thinking. The former phase of his work 
appears in its most extreme form in the Animadver- 
sions upon Aristotle. As has been shown,^ he is 
altogether too severe with Aristotle, failing utterly 
to see the merit of his work, and accusing him of 
obscurity, confusion, and contradiction, and even 
' See pp. 30 f. 



144 PETER RAMUS 

of puerility and ineptitude. To excuse this velie- 
mence, we must recall the dogmatism of the times, the 
stupidity and fanaticism of the defenders of Aris- 
totle, and the intolerable yoke with which they were 
endeavoring to burden all intelligence and love of 
truth, science, and progress. But these ebullitions 
of his youthful audacity were afterward somewhat 
cooled. In later editions of the Animadversions he 
was more moderate, and in his Stttdies on Dialectic 
and the works that grew out of his contest with 
Schegk he even shows a great admiration for Aris- 
totle and professes to be a better Peripatetic than 
his adversaries. 

This milder tone is also shown in his borrowing 
certain detached principles from Aristotle to shape 
his own works. While Ramus never accepted the 
system of Aristotle as a whole, we have seen ^ that 
he at least obtained the laws by which he selected 
his content in all studies, directly or indirectly, 
from a treatise of that philosopher. These princi- 
ples are consequently applied in the ' demonstrative ' 
or expository side of his dialectic, which appears in a 
succession of publications at different periods.^ The 

' See pp. iioff. 

* E.g., Dialectics Partitiones or Institutiones, Dialectique, Dia- 
lectics libri duo, and Schola in liberales artes. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRWIUM 1 45 

scholastic works on dialectic in general use brought 
into their subject matter parts that belonged rather 
to other arts, such as grammar, rhetoric, and ethics, 
but, subject to his three laws, Ramus confined his 
material strictly to the art of thinking. 

This discipline, he claimed, should be constituted 
as nature teaches it, without regard to the prejudices 
or opinions of men. It should be determined 
according to our experience and observation of 
reasoning in daily life, for the rules of thought 
should be formulated after the fashion in which our 
ordinary common sense solves problems. We should, 
he states, thoroughly investigate how men use their 
reason.^ The way of discovering this method of 
nature is given at length in an early work : — 

''Wherefore to understand the functioning of 
reason, observe among the thousands of men those 
most distinguished for their natural ability and 
sagacity and suppose they have to give their advice 
in the discussion of an important matter. Their 
reasoning ought to give you an image of the nature 
of reason, even as a faithful mirror. Examine, then, 
what those advisers, through whom nature reveals 

' Cf . Vera logicce artis descriptio proficisci debet a naturalis rationis 
et usus observatione {Schol. dial., XX, 941). 



146 PETER RAMUS 

herself, wish to do. First, if I mistake not, they 
will search silently in their minds for every possible 
reason, and will invent every possible argument by 
which to exhort you to undertake what is contem- 
plated or to turn you from it. Then, when they have 
found satisfactory arguments, they will express their 
thought, not at random, but in order and methodi- 
cally; not content with demonstrating each separate 
point elegantly and forcefully, they will embrace the 
question as a whole, descending from the most 
general ideas to the individual and particular cases 
falling under them. If this is their procedure in a 
single discussion, there is the greater argument for 
their following it when they study the nature of 
reasoning in its entirety, as did the first philosophers, 
who had no artificial logic at all. Hence at all 
times that an occasion arises for exercising our rea- 
son, nature invites our minds to a twofold effort : on 
the one hand, greater activity and more penetration 
for solving the problem; and on the other more 
calm reflection for examining and weighing that 
solution and properly arranging its various parts. 
Herein we recognize with certainty the action of 
nature from which science should never depart, 
but should follow religiously, for it will have fulfilled 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 47 

its purpose only when it has reproduced the wisdom 
of nature. Science ought, therefore, to study the 
lessons that are innate in select minds; and then, 
when it has collected them with care, it should in 
turn transmit them in their most natural order, 
and upon them as a model should formulate the 
rules for those who desire to reason well. Thus 
dialectic should, as it were, first be the pupil of 
nature, but should later become her schoolmistress, 
for nature is by no means so energetic and strong 
that she cannot gain an advantage through under- 
standing herself and recognizing her functions, nor 
yet so feeble and languishing that she cannot, with 
the help of this art, acquire greater power and in- 
tensity."^ 

Hence Ramus would base dialectic upon actual 
experience and usage. As grammar and rhetoric 
were to be founded upon the practice of those who 
wrote and spoke well, dialectic is to take its principles 
and rules from the procedure of those best fitted to 
reason ; namely, the wise.^ His very practical dialec- 

^ DialecticcB partitiones, fol. 3, 4; Scholce dialecticcB, IV, pp. 
146 flf. 

■^ After this, we can better understand the significance of the 
term 'utilitarian,' with which he was frequently taunted. See 
P- 57- 



148 PETER RAMUS 

tic,^ therefore, is more the art of persuasion and ex- 
position than of the discovery of truth. With him 
the subject leaned toward rhetoric, and could 
better be learned, he held, by observing Cicero than 
by studying the canons of the Organon} At the 
outset of his treatises, he defines dialectic as 'the 
art of discussing well,' ^ and from the two methods 
we have just seen that he discerned in the reasoning 
of the wise, it is divided into ' invention ' and * arrange- 
ment.' " The former division of the subject, which he 
defines as that of 'inventing the arguments,'^ is con- 
cerned with the separate parts of which the subject 
is composed. The latter, defined as 'the suitable 
arrangement of the things invented,' ^ deals with the 
combination and classification of these parts in the 
completed presentation. 

* See pp. 154 f. ^ Hence Prantl calls it ' Ciceronian-rhetorical.' 
/ * Dialectica est ars bene disserendi is the opening of his Latin 

/ treatises. 

* Inventio and judicium (cf . Cicero) or dispositio. Dial, libri duo, 
Book I, Chap. II; Dialectique,p. 4. Here again his 'dichotomy' 
is in evidence. These are the main divisions, it will be noted, that 
are usually assigned to rhetoric, but which Ramus discarded from 
that subject. See p. 136. 

^ Pars de inveniendis argumentis or doctrina cogitandi et inve- 
niendi argumenti. 

^ Apta rerum inventarum collocatio or parsde disponendis argu- 
mentis ad judicandum. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 149 

'Invention' is separated into two main groups 
of arguments, — 'artificial,' which are demonstrated, 
and 'inartificial,' which are assumed.^ Under these 
heads, Ramus arranges all the chief forms of argu- 
ment into which human thought falls, and illustrates 
them with examples from the classical poets and 
orators. Of the artificial arguments the first four 
are based on (i) causes, which are to be distinguished 
as 'efficient,' 'material,' 'formal,' and 'final' ;^ (2) 
effects; (3) 'subjects' or presuppositions,^ and 
(4) adjuncts.^ These all come under the head of 
agreeing,^ but there are also disagreeing ^ arguments ; 
among which are included (5) 'different' and 'op- 
posed.' Besides these five groups, which are all 
simple, there are (6) compound arguments. While 
these groups are 'primary,' there are also 'secondary' 

^ Argumentum est artificiale aut inariificiale. Artificiale, quod 
ex se arguit. 

* These classes of causes are borrowed from Aristotle. 

' The word used is subjecta (Aristotle's xjiroKUfxeva) . Ramus thus 
explains it : subjeciunt est, cui aliquid conjungittir. Anima est 
subjectum scientim, ignorantice, virtutis, vitii; quia h(BC prater 
essentiam accedunt. 

* Adjunctum est, cui aliquid subjicitur. 

^ Consentaneum est quod consentit cum re quam arguit. 

® Dissentanea is used here. Like consentanea, it is borrowed 
from Cicero and indicates again the leaning of his dialectic toward 
rhetoric. 



150 PETER RAMUS 

arguments. The latter are distinguished a.s (7) quah 
tative,^ which relate to names rather than things and 
may be connotative and denotative, (8) distributive, 
or (9) definitive. The second main division of the 
classes of arguments, 'inartificial' or (10) assumed,^ 
embraces 'divine' and 'human' testimonies that 
have been inherited, and these may be further 
divided, the one as it comes from oracles or proph- 
ecies, and the other from actual laws or from the 
sanction of proverbs. 

The second book treats the second part of dialectic, 
— ' arrangement.' Here also is a twofold division, — 
the 'axiom' or proposition,^ and the 'dianoia' or 
deduction.'' Deduction is itself divided into syllo- 
gism and 'method.' There several divisions of the 
propositions are suggested, but it is sufficient to 
note here its ' quality ' as affirmative or negative, and 
its * quantity' as general or special. The syllogism 
consists in deriving a conclusion from a ' proposition ' 

1 Notatio (Aristotle's a-v/xISokov or a-v^vyov) est nominis interpre- 
iatio. 

2 These categories for reducing the terms of thought to ten chief 
classes were borrowed from Aristotle. 

' Axioma est dispositio argumenti cum argumento, qua esse ali- 
qiiid aul nan esse judicatur. Latine, enunciatum dicitw. 
* D-lanoia est cum alnid ex alio deducitur. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVTUM 151 

and an 'assumption,' or a major and minor premise. 
It includes two classes, — the ' simple ' or categorical 
and the 'conjunctive' or conditional, the latter of 
which is divided into hypothetical and disjunctive. 
The categorical syllogism, which consists in a 
judgment derived from two simple propositions, is 
divided according to quantity and quality into 
fourteen 'modes.' These correspond to those of 
the first three 'figures' in Aristotle, as Ramus rejects 
the fourth figure, with its five modes, as invalid. 
The hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms, so 
named from the nature of their premises, have 
each two modes, one of which leads to positive 
conclusions and the other to negative. Ramus also 
explains the meaning of several other forms of the 
syllogism, — enthymeme, induction, example, di- 
lemma, and sorites, through which false conclusions 
are derived. To the enthymeme and the sorites he 
grants a certain validity, but the syllogisms cited, 
he declares in closing, are 'the golden rule' by which 
the good, just, true, useful, and their opposites can 
be judged. 

'Method,' the other form of deduction, is defined 
as " the arrangement of a variety of arguments so that 
the first in importance is placed first, the second next, 



152 PETER RAMUS 

the third in the third place, and so on in order." 
This process is divided into the method of ' learning ' 
and that of 'sagacity.' There is apparently no 
difference in their origin, nature, and purpose, but 
they represent one and the same method in two fields 
and compose simply a twofold phase of one process. 
The method of 'learning' is strongly scientific, and 
follows the laws of logic, going from definitions and 
general principles to the distribution and special 
arrangement of parts. Just as this method is used 
in the liberal arts, 'sagacity' is the corresponding 
form among poets, orators, and historians. In the 
latter case the method is not in logical form, but 
is thoroughly natural and comes simply from the 
application of reason and wisdom. The chapters ^ 
in which this whole subject is treated are regarded 
by Ramus as the most important part of his dialec- 
tic works. In one place he says : — 

"But 'method,' both in the form of 'learning' 
and of 'sagacity,' is the sovereign light of reason. 
In this not only have the other animals nothing in 
common with men, as they may have in the 'proposi- 
tion,' but even men differ very widely among them- 

' Dialectical libri duo, Book II, Chaps. XVII and XVIII ; Dialec- 
fique, pp. 119 ff. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 53 

selves in the qualification. For, however much they 
may all naturally share in the syllogistic faculty, 
the number of those who study how to use it well is 
very small, and of that small number there are still 
fewer who know how to arrange and judge according 
to good 'method.' By as much as man surpasses 
the beasts in the syllogism, may he himself excel 
other men through 'method,' and the divinity of 
man is reflected in no part of reason so fully as in the 
sum of that universal method of judgment." ^ 

Evidently, Ramus holds, the way taken in wise 
deliberation is from general to particular, and the 
reader especially meets this 'method' in literature, 
since the author necessarily struggles to be clear and 
develop his material in proper sequence. If ' method ' 
be neglected in either science or practical life, con- 
fusion ensues. Since this method forms a clear 
arrangement of material, it assists a natural develop- 
ment of the pupil's memory, and, in consequence, 
the second book closes with a chapter on this mental 
function. In this Ramus introduced the first rules 
on memory that ever appeared in a work on the art 
of thinking, but they were little developed here. 

An idea of the treatment of dialectic by Ramus may 
1 Didectique, p. 135. 



154 PETER RAMUS 

be gained from the abbreviated analysis on the next 
page. It can easily be seen that the great contri- 
butions of Ramus to the study of dialectic were brev- 
ity, simplicity, and clearness. As a corresponding 
failing, his system has been supposed to be somewhat 
superficial. But logic with him was not the science 
of the normative laws of human knowledge. He 
held it to be simply the practical art of debating 
a question, and whatever subject matter is not needed 
for his purpose, he rejects from his treatise. He de- 
clines to consider any of the fundamental ontological 
or epistemological problems that are often thought 
to be preliminary to logic. He even refuses to use 
the word 'concept' (notio), since it seems to him 
too philosophic, and simply speaks of 'arguments.' 
Logic for him deals not with the discovery of truth 
so much as with exposition and persuasion, and he 
is inclined to make dialectic lean toward rhetoric.^ 
This, however, grew out of his desire to produce a 
practical and useful dialectic, as opposed to the formal 

1 This accounts for the criticisms of some of his contemporaries, 
who declared that he was another Erasistratus and an ignoramus, 
and that he wished to teach his pupils to fly without wings. See 
Schegk, Hyperaspistes ad epislolam P. Rami, pp. 4 £f. ; Ursinus, 
Bedenken ob Rami DialecHca in Sckulen einzufuhren (Heidelberg, 
1586). 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 



155 




_ o 

.a s 
ass 



s^s 



.y-2 



60O E 



••StJ'i.a'o 

-S «i 31.-"0 " 



156 PETER RAMUS 

definitions, minute analyses, and barren rules of the 
scholastic treatises, and such a simplification and 
clarity in presenting the technique of the art of 
thinking was of much value to education. More- 
over, his conception of dialectic would tend to foster 
free thought and inquiry, and harmonize the rules 
of thinking with nature. To be sure, he sought 
these principles of thought in the works of the great 
classical writers, rather than in his own reflection, 
and so may have somewhat aided the formalized 
humanism eventually to establish a new yoke upon 
intellectual progress, but in his time he must have 
been a great factor in freeing education from the 
tyranny of a scholastic conception of Aristotle and 
in breaking with the barbarism of the Middle Ages. 
Through his dialectic he dared to tackle the philo- 
sophic positions accepted unquestioningly for several 
centuries and to resist the absurd distinctions of the 
schoolmen. He made it clear that it was time to de- 
part from the tutelage of Aristotle, and to this extent 
he is still contributing to the advancement of the 
science of logic. For, as has well been said,^ "he alone 
dared to say openly and without reserve what others 
only lisped ; he alone realized what they scarcely 

1 Brucker, Hist. crit. philos., Per. Ill, pars II, 1. II, c. i, § 2. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 57 

dared to wish, in his preparation of a new dia- 
lectic." 

Ramus deals also with the method of teaching 
dialectic, which is to occupy the pupils during the 
fifth year of the course. As in grammar and rhetoric, 
he insisted upon 'practice' as of more importance 
even than 'explanation.' His opponents, he main- 
tained, were teaching only 'dead logic,' and were 
using the precepts of the art for a game of ball over 
which to shout and quarrel, and he declared that 
their sophistic disputations over dialectic theses 
were not only fruitless, but injurious. Just as the 
content was to follow 'nature,' 'practice' should 
follow the mastery of content.^ The teacher should 
make an 'explanation' of the logical rules, as con- 
tained in 'invention' and 'arrangement,' and the 
pupil should learn and discuss them, but the matter 
could not stop there. The knowledge of the classes 
of arguments and the forms of judgment must be 
zealously applied, if it is to be of value. 

The material here also, as in the preceding arts, is 
to be furnished by the classical writers, especially 
Cicero and Demosthenes. With his conception of 

^ Dial, partit., fol. i, ars igitur naturam sibi propositam semper 
habeat, exercitatio artem. 



158 PETER RAMUS 

dialectic, he naturally turns to the orators for illus- 
trations, but he is no longer satisfied with mere 
excerpts. To understand their argumentation, whole 
speeches are laid before the student. As elsewhere, 
in 'practice' 'analysis' comes first; the arguments 
are picked out and classified, and the cases of ' syllo- 
gism ' and ' method ' have their ' figures ' and ' modes ' 
determined. Then 'practice' in 'genesis,' or pro- 
duction, must be afforded, during which the student 
writes first a close imitation of the passage, and later 
makes a more independent production.^ Ramus 
furnishes several illustrations of his entire method. 
For example, we may take the speech of Cicero, 
For Milo. In the 'analysis,' he would first have 
the defense read ; then the student should examine 
all the arguments adduced and place them ac- 
cording to the ten classes; and finally determine 
the 'premises,' 'conclusions,' and 'methods,' accord- 
ing to which the arguments were arranged. In the 
'genesis,' what Cicero urged in behalf of Milo is 
applied in a similar theme. For example, a noble- 
man is to be defended in an indictment for murder, 
and the pupil has to seek and arrange the arguments 
and conclusions in a fashion like that of Cicero. 

1 See pp. 117, 133, and 140. 



THE CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE TRIVIUM 1 59 

Gradually, however, he should strive n<:>t to imi- 
tate the great Roman orator slavishly, but to 
become as independent as possible and even to 
surpass him. Throughout this training in dialectic, 
while, in keeping with the law of 'justice,' there is 
no repetition of grammar and rhetoric, no part of 
the instruction of the previous four years is to be 
neglected, and, according to his principle of 'com- 
bined use,' ^ every exercise must be couched in correct 
grammar and ornate language. 

1 See p. 141. 



CHAPTER VII 

Content and Method of the Quadrivium 

As we have indicated, Ramus was not satisfied 
to limit his reforms to the lower trinity of liberal 
arts. He soon turned his attention also to the 
'esoteric' studies, or quadrivium, which in his day 
still included the mathematical subjects of arith- 
metic and geometry, together with music and astron- 
omy as minor fields.^ Music had fallen into the 
background and he never attempted to revive it. 
Astronomy he included to some extent under his 
wider term of 'physics.' 

To mathematics, however, Ramus gave great at- 
tention, and the results of his labors here are worthy 
of more detailed consideration than could be given 
when dealing with the account of his life. These 
subjects have been so immensely expanded and im- 
proved since his day that a mere inspection of his pro- 

^ See p. 1 20. Ra7ni adiones duct in senaki, pro regia nmtkematica 
professionis cathedra, published in two editions in 1566, and extant 
also in Collectancce prcefationes, epistolce, orationes, p. 533. 

160 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM l6l 

ductions will give but a very inadequate notion of his 
actual contribution. Up to the last quarter of the 
fifteenth century, the texts on mathematics were lim- 
ited to little more than those of the ancients and the 
wretched condensations ^ made during the Middle 
Ages, and while just before the close of the century 
a few editions of Euclid had been published at 
humanistic centers in Italy,^ little had been done 
with the subject. The humanists who might have 
collected and translated these treatises were largely 
absorbed in the development of linguistic study. ^ 
At the opening of the sixteenth century conditions 
began to improve ; a number of earnest scholars 
came into the field,* and several textbooks on mathe- 
matics appeared in Germany, Italy, and France. 
But while several prominent mathematicians were 
developed at Paris before Ramus, he must still be 

1 Paciuolo's work (1494) and Valla's edition (1498) were hardly 
of this order, and there were a number of excellent modern works 
on arithmetic published before 1501, such as those of Borghi and 
Calandri. 

^ Such as the 1482 edition of Ratdolt in Venice, the 1491 edition 
at Vincentia, and Valla's edition of 1498. 

' Even Sturm entirely ignored the subject in his curriculum. 

* Faber Stapulensis, Clichtoveus, Bouvelles, Budaeus, Jean 
Fernel, Oronce Finee, and Jacques Peletier were among those to 
advance the subject before the work of Ramus began. 



l62 PETER RAMUS 

accounted a pioneer. Before his death he had be- 
come one of the best-known mathematicians that 
France possessed, and his reputation endured until 
the time of Descartes. His works, too, compare 
favorably with most of the others^ produced during 
the entire century. As late as 1625, his arithmetic 
was still in good standing, and it was, together with his 
geometry and posthumous algebra, republished and 
commented upon in France, Germany, Holland, and 
throughout academic Europe. Moreover, his lectures 
on the subject at the College of France brought 
into existence a host of brilliant young mathema- 
ticians, who became the means of stimulating an in- 
terest and of greatly advancing the work during the 
next half century, and at his death he left most of his 
fortune to found a chair of mathematics at the College 
of France. Hence his achievements, crude as they 
were, entitle him to an honorable place in the history 
of mathematics. 

The special interest that Ramus showed in mathe- 
matics was probably due not only to his appreciation 
of the subject as a means of mental discipUne and as 
a key to many practical pursuits, but equally to its 
definiteness and the possibility of illustrating thereby 

* Vfete's incomparable work would have to be excepted. 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM 1 6 



O 



the three rules he had laid down for determinuig the 
content of a subject.' He held that the laws of 
'justice' and 'wisdom' had been violated, and that 
too much complexity and obscurity appeared in the 
current works on mathematics, and even in Aristotle. 
Ramus declares that the great philosopher mingled 
much of the subject matter of arithmetic with that 
of geometry, and treated geometry before arithmetic, 
although this forced him to repeat certain general 
conceptions, such as ' size,' under several heads. 
Most of these difficulties for mathematics could be 
avoided, he insists, by sharply separating the fields of 
the subjects and by treating all general conceptions 
first.2 

Ramus declares the subject matter of arithmetic 
to be that 'of proper calculation.' ^ He divides it as 
'simple' and 'comparative' or compound, and de- 
votes a book to each class. "The simple arithmetic 
considers the nature of numbers singly," while "com- 
parative arithmetic treats the comparison of numbers 
in quantity and quality." The former includes no- 

' Schol. Math., prcef., in Colled, prcef., p. i66. 

*Schol. Math., I, pp. 2 ff. 

^ Arithmeiicae est doctrina bene numerandi. This seems to be 
the only one of the arts where ars is not used, but this is probably 
accidental, as is shown by Dialectica, lib. I, cap. III. 



164 PETER RAMUS 

tation, the four fundamental operations, fractions, 
and improper numbers ; the latter deals with 
arithmetical and geometrical proportion, the rule 
of three ('golden rule'), alligation, equations, and 
allied topics. Geometry he calls ' the art of measur- 
ing properly.' The subject falls naturally into plane 
and solid, but the division into twenty-seven books 
treats the subject from the standpoint of separate 
topics rather than of groups. His treatise on plane 
geometry covers lines, angles, and such figures 
as triangles, quadrangles, polygons, parallelograms, 
squares, and circles, together with their relations 
and subdivisions; that on solid geometry covers 
the properties and subdivisions of pyramids, prisms, 
cubes, spheres, cones, and cylinders. 

The diagrams on the following pages, giving more 
detail, show how carefully Ramus observed his fun- 
damental principles in the content of mathematics, 
and how both arithmetic and geometry could be 
divided according to his favorite method of ' dichot- 
omy.' While by his clear presentation he may have 
sacrificed something of the rigorous discipline that 
has been claimed by some as the chief value in the 
study of mathematics, he felt clearness to be of most 
importance and ruthlessly eliminated all extraor- 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRTVIUil 105 

dinary complexity. The order and simplicity of his 
arrangement are admirable, and his demonstrations 
are clear and easily remembered. We are further 
indebted to him as perhaps the first to put the 
problems of Euclid in the form of propositions and 
theorems, which has proven such a boon for the 
memory. 

The method of teaching which Ramus advocated 
for mathematics was quite as effective as that in the 
other subjects, and was based on the same principles. 
After the rules had been explained as simply as 
possible, the pupil's knowledge was put in practice. 
Here again he stressed the process of 'analysis' and 
'genesis.' The examples were to be borrowed from 
the mathematical writings of the ancients, chiefly 
Euclid, or formed by the teacher himself. In geome- 
try the figures were first to be drawn by the instructor 
and then imitated by the student.^ Again, in order 
that the work of the trivium might not be forgotten, 
he advised that discussions be held upon mathe- 
matical theses, and that the arguments and diction 
used be held to a high standard of efficiency. 

We may now turn to the other quadrivial subject 
upon which Ramus wrote. Until his time, 'physics,' 
^ See Praf. math., in the Collect, praf., p. 166. 



i66 



PETER R.VMUS 



2 3 

•Si lag 

3 = SHP 



Is I 






~ ii 



s 



1 1 1 



It 



•i; o 



II 



.§ i 



S ^ I. § -o 

■B j> & « ? 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRTV'IUM 



167 




M 






M- . 






lip 



105 PETER RAMUS 

like mathematics, played a decidedly subordinate 
part in the colleges of the university. And neither in 
his day nor for a long time afterward was it generally 
dignified with careful organization or methodical 
instruction. Even the humanists, since natural 
science lay quite outside their sphere of interest, 
did little or nothing to disturb the authority of 
Aristotle in this field,^ although they tried to disrupt 
the traditional scholastic methods and the super- 
stitions of astrolog>^ Ramus undertook to intro- 
duce the same system into the content and method 
of physics as he had in the case of the other liberal 
arts. He vigorously attacked both the schoolmen 
and Aristotle, and criticized the eight books of the 
latter's work on natural science " in the same number 
of Stitdies in Physics.^ He claimed that this treatise 
of the great philosopher secured its material more 
from logic than from nature, and that xA.ristotle 
indulged in too many speculations, which have 
nothing to do with the field of physics. With some 
exaggeration, he says : — 

"If one should by means of his senses and reason 
investigate heaven and earth and all that therein is, 

^ Witness Melanclithon's Instiiuliones physicce. 
* ^(TLKfj 'AKp6a<ri'i. ^ Schola pfiysicce. 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVnjM 169 

as a physicist ought to do, and then compare his 
results with the Physics of Aristotle, he would find 
in that work no observation of anything in nature, 
but only sophisms, theoretical speculations, and un- 
supported assertions." ^ 

The proper method, he held, is quite contrary to 
Aristotle's. One should develop the subject of 
physics by avoiding philosophical digressions and 
searching with his senses through visible nature, 
where lies the genuine and useful material, which 
needs only to be observed, tested, and arranged 
methodically for instruction. 

However, this invective against senseless and 
pernicious abstractions and the suggestion of a real 
investigation of nature must not mislead us into 
supposing that Ramus himself held to induction in 
natural science. In building up his physics he did 
not resort directly to nature for his material, but, 
similarly to his method with the literary and argu- 
mentative arts, he took his facts largel}^ from the 
Physics of Aristotle, the Natural History of Pliny, 
and the Georgics of Vergil. And the order of ar- 
rangement is as deductive as it is in his geometry. 
His Studies in Physics tell us that the "aim of 
} PrcBJat. physica, in the CoUectan. prafaL, p. 69. 



170 PETER RAMUS 

genuine natural science is to study first the heavens, 
then the meteors, then the minerals, vegetables, 
animals, and finally man." Physics deals with 
nature, which is an 'essence constant in itself.'^ 
'God' and 'intelligence' {mens) are assigned as the 
chief principles underlying nature, but are not 
further mentioned, since he rigidly eschews meta- 
physical discussions, and he quickly turns to the 
material world. After a very brief chapter upon 
forms of matter in motion, — birth, death, growth, 
decay, and the like, he takes up astronomy and 
deals with the heavenly bodies, zones, poles, zodiac, 
chronology, and temperature. The heavenly bodies 
are discussed under the first element, — 'fire.' The 
three remaining elements include all natural phe- 
nomena. His chapter on 'air' deals with clouds, 
thunder and lightning, hail, winds, and rains. Then 
from the phenomena of the air he goes to 'water,' 
under which he considers oceans, rivers, springs, 
and wells. Finally, he deals with the 'earth,' in- 
cluding the stones and metals in its bosom, and 
the plants, animals, and men that thrive upon it. 
The outline on page 172, which is taken from a 

* Natura est essentia per se constans. 



CONTENT AND METHOD OF THE QUADRIVIUM 171 

summary of his lectures by one of his pupils/ will 
give some idea of the classification of the subject. 

Thus in selecting the subject matter for his 
physics Ramus treats the supersensible cursorily and 
devotes himself almost exclusively to visible ob- 
jects. He purposely rejects hypotheses and specu- 
lations. Astronomy, meteorology, and agriculture 
occupy the bulk of his work, but considerable atten- 
tion is also given to botanical, zoological, and anthro- 
pological material. Very clearly, however, he has 
investigated none of these topics for himself, but has 
relied upon the records of the classical authors. His 
great contribution rests in his substantial and objec- 
tive treatment, free from all the philosophic theories 
of the times, and in his excellent organization and 
clear arrangement, which passes down from the 
heavenly bodies and the phenomena of the air to the 
earth with its organic and inorganic features, and 
realizes its aim and end in man. 

This work in physics, which was planned for the 
seventh and final year of the course, was to be taught 
like the other arts, by 'practice,' including 'analysis' 
and 'genesis,' as well as by 'explanation.' Unfor- 

1 Projessio regia (pp. 285 ff.), published by Freigius four years 
after the death of Ramus. 



172 



PETER RAMUS 



tunately, the real spirit of science and induction was 
as yet so little understood that the student gained 
this exercise through an interpretation of the descrip- 
tions of various classical authors rather than by 
actual observation, and the study became verbal 
rather than scientific. But, compared with the texts 
of the time, the physics of Ramus must have pre- 
sented an admirable body of well-arranged material 
and must have proved more interesting and easier 
to learn. 





Immaterial / 9°^„ 
I intell 


igence 
















birth and death 
growth and decay 
alteration 






matter in motion 








change of place 












[constant ( '^«*^» 
l stars 








simple 






■fire 


Physics, 
dealing with 
' nature, an 
essence con- 
stant in 
itself,' 
includes : 


Mate- 
rial 


classes 


elements 


ino 


inconstan 
rganic or 


t 
air 


air 
water 
, earth 


clouds 

thunders 

lightnings 

hails 

winds 

rains 








com- 


' meteors ' 




oceans 








posite 
of ele- 




water 


rivers 
springs 








ments 






wells 












r stones 












earth | metals 












I colors 










e plants 










organic ] animals and beasts 














ma 


n 





CHAPTER VIII 

Higher and Professional Studies 

When Ramus retired from active teaching in 1571, 
it was understood that, in continuing his reform of 
the Hberal arts, he would include treatises on ethics 
and politics, which were coming to be added in the 
higher curriculum of the quadrivium} It is even 
stated that he had prepared a work upon the subject 
of ethics, which awaited only a final revision, when 
death cut short his literary activities.^ If this 
treatise was ever published or even produced, how- 
ever, it has now been lost, and we have to depend 
upon other works of his for our knowledge of his 
moral teachings. Happily his references to the sub- 
ject elsewhere are so extensive that it is not difficult 
to reconstruct his general positions. His polemics 
are developed in occasional outbursts against Aris- 
totelianism in his orations and more systematically 

' See p, 120. 

^ Referred to in his Oratio de professione liberalium artiunt. (Paris, 
1563.) See p. 104. 

173 



174 PETER RAMUS 

in his Studies in Metaphysics. His constructive 
attitude in pure ethics is found in the treatise On the 
Customs of the Ancient Gauls, although this was in- 
tended to be more of an historical work than a trea- 
tise on morals, and his positions as a Christian ethi- 
cist are developed in the second and third books of 
his posthumous Commentaries on the Christian Re- 
ligion. 

The ethical attitude of Ramus in many places is 
purely anti-Aristotelian and destructive. He fails 
somewhat to understand Aristotle, but as an ardent 
Christian he evidently holds it incumbent upon him 
to combat the paganism of that philosopher. Like 
most theologians until a very recent day, he proves 
a naive dualist. He cannot conceive of ethics with- 
out the direct action of God upon the human soul. 
Hence he inveighs against the scholastic instruction 
in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics , "where the boy 
learns a mass of impieties : for example, that the 
principle and ideals of * the good ' are innate in every 
man, that all the virtues are within his own power, 
that he acquires them by means of nature, art, and 
labor, and that for this work, so grand and so sublime, 
man has need of neither the aid nor the cooperation 
of God. Nothing about providence; not a word 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 75 

about divine justice ; in short, since, in the eyes of 
Aristotle, souls are mortal, the happiness of man is 
reduced to this perishable life." "Such," he ex- 
claims, "is the philosophy out of which we build the 
foundation of 'our religion!"^ In fact, to the in- 
genuous mind of Ramus, Aristotle's very idea of God 
savors of atheism. In another connection he de- 
clares at length: — 

"God, according to Aristotle, is an eternal essence, 
which knows not matter, magnitude, parts, division, 
passion, or change, and leads a perfect and com- 
pletely happy existence. Even if this be granted, 
what a further mass of errors and impieties ! God 
is an animal; there are as many gods as there are 
celestial globes. God has no real power whatsoever ; 
he would not know how to act or move, had he 
not possessed those characteristics from all eternity. 
God is the first cause of the world, but without wish- 
ing or even knowing it. He thinks only of himself 
and disdains all the rest. He is neither ' creator ' 
nor 'providence.' He moves the world eternally 
even as the loadstone moves iron. He has neither 
love, benevolence, nor charity. What, then, is such 

1 Pro philosophica Parisiensis Academice disciplina oratio. See 
CoUeclanecB prafationes, epislolce, oratianes, pp. 337 f. 



176 PETER RAMUS 

an atheistic conception of God save a Titanic strug- 
gle against him?" ^ 

Such is the vehemence with which Ramus ordina- 
rily attacks the foundations of Aristotle's ethics, but 
at times he shows that the ancient philosopher had 
anticipated the true Christian doctrine and accepts 
his positions, even at the expense of certain usages 
of the Church. For example, after showing that 
Aristotle completely rejected the gods made in the 
image of man, he remarks that "this philosopher, 
pagan though he was, has therein shown himself 
more pious than a great many Christians, who place 
in their temples visible and gross images of the Trin- 
ity, of which even the mind can scarcely conceive." ^ 
Occasionally he goes so far as to claim to rely abso- 
lutely upon reason, and "not even to employ any 
argument drawn from the Holy Scriptures, nor 
appeal to the authority of Christ and Moses." ^ 
His commentary on the institutions and customs 
of the ancient Gauls, which is outlined on page 
179, treats ethics from the standpoint of the four 

* Schol. met., 1. XIV, at the close. 

^Ibid., 1. XII, cap. 8. Cf. Schol. phys., 1. VIII, toward the 
end. 

' Schol. phys., 1. VIII, at the close. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 77 

cardinal virtues and almost in the terms of Plato 
and Cicero. 

As a rule, however, Ramus does not desire any 
such complete emancipation. In the treatment of 
ethics in his Commentaries on the Christian Religion 
lie is a true Protestant Christian, and bases his solu- 
tion of ethical problems upon the Scriptures, espe- 
cially the decalogue and the Lord's prayer. Yet he 
never hesitates to refer to examples from antiquity 
in defense of his position, as well as to contrast them 
with his conception of Christian ethics. As in- 
stances of this, we may note his citation of the Lace- 
dsemonian and primitive Roman mandate to * honor 
thy father and mother,' of Cicero's and Menander's 
prohibition of bearing ' false witness,' and of a variety 
of pagan warnings against ' covetous ' action and even 
thought. He felt, of course, that the ancient world 
was more in harmony with the later five command- 
ments, which deal rather with man's social relations 
and not so much with his reconciliation with God, 
whereas the Christian world holds that primarily in 
God, and not in ourselves, rests the motive for human 
struggles and human happiness.^ He maintains at 
the start, therefore, that the fundamental principle 

1 Commentaria de religione Christiana, II, 2-10. 



178 PETER RAMUS 

of ethics is man's obedience to God and his desire to 
submit to his will in all things.^ The means of bring- 
ing God near and unifying him with man is 'faith' 
in the Father's benefits to his church or kingdom 
upon earth. 

• Then, through illustrations from the Sermon on the 
Mount and quotations from other parts of the New 
Testament, Ramus enlarges, deepens, and brings 
out the inner meaning of each one of the command- 
ments. He converts all these negative statements 
into positive commands, and gives to the Old Tes- 
tament form a New Testament content, thus produc- 
ing from a code of statutes a system of Christian 
ethics.^ In carrying this out, he states that all Chris- 
tfan duties and virtues can be embraced under "piety 
and charity as the sum and substance of the law. 
Charity is both the cause and effect of the law. It is 
filled with faith, hope, and sympathy, and is void of 
mahce, pride, hatred, and injustice. It is the one 
and all-comprehensive virtue." ^ From this root, 
then, spring all the Christian virtues and all good 
works. Content is accordingly given to these general 

' Commentaria de religions Christiana, I, 2, 10 and I, r, 6 f. 
'^ Ibid., II, 7, 229; II, 10, 179; and II, 11, 251. 
• Ibid., II, 13, 202. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 



179 



s i 



eo o o !*! "1 

aa5 



V £ 



It 



a 5 > " 

•5 ^ ■^ ^ •- 

I a J-il 







-a 








•0 






g 


i 






3 


« 


K= 




<a 


cd 


i 








8 1 
a t 


















§ 


£ 




i ^ 




^ 














.g 










8 








.^ 




8 



£ 



* a i 



.i o 



S ^ "3 ^ 

« a « "J ^ 

'^ ^ s a -D " 

_ « ^ S > 5 £ 



l8o PETER RAMUS 

principles in his treatment of all human relations.^ 
Marriage, which is concerned in the seventh com- 
mandment, Ramus outlines historically, beginning 
with God's sanction of the relation in the case of 
Adam and Eve, and citing Christ's approval by his 
presence at the wedding feast in Cana and by the 
symbolic marriage of Christ with the Church. He 
further holds that marriage should take place only 
between members of the Church. He specifies that it 
should be forbidden between Christians and pagans 
and within certain degrees of consanguinity, and cites 
instances in the Bible where violations of this prin- 
ciple have been punished. The Old Testament polyg- 
amy cannot be taken as the norm, for the relation 
was in its institution monogamous. Celibacy, how- 
ever, is not holier than marriage, and he condemns the 
requirement in the case of monks, nuns, and secular 
priests. Divorce should be granted only on the 
grounds of adultery. The rule for the relation of 
parents and children Ramus finds in the fifth com- 
mandment, and more specific guidance he gathers 
from the Epistle to the Ephesians and the works of 
various classical writers. He gives as a warning for 

^ This forms the substance of the second book of his Commen- 
taries. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES l8l 

the violation of this law the punishments meted out 
to Ham and to Absalom. In all social, civic, and 
political life, Ramus stresses the duty of truth. He 
will not sanction Svhite lies,' concealment of the 
truth by physicians, rhetorical turns of the orator, or 
deceptions in diplomacy. If the truth must be 
concealed, the proper way to achieve this is by silence 
or by such an answer as will produce silence on the 
part of the questioner, as in the case of Jesus with the 
Pharisees. Oaths are not unconditionally forbidden, 
for Abraham, David, Paul, and other biblical models 
swore in God's name when the circumstances called 
for such action. In general, asseveration of this 
sort should be permitted when made concerning the 
truth, but should not be done wantonly in cujsing or 
in supporting falsehood through perjury. For this 
latter grievous sin God has often punished men 
severely. Ramus ranks tithe-taking with usury, and 
brings them both under the eighth commandment, — ■ 
not to steal. One may, however, increase his posses- 
sions by all honorable means. Like the reformers 
in general, this French moralist was very strict in 
his ideas of amusements. Dancing, for example, he 
would permit among young maidens by themselves, 
as in the case of the sisters of Moses and their com- 



l82 PETER RAMUS 

panions, but dancing with a member of the opposite 
sex, in his opinion, was too often associated with 
immorahty. Obedience to magistrates was especially 
counseled by Ramus, as implied in the fifth com- 
mandment, but, on the other hand, magistrates must 
live up to their duties. War and capital punishment, 
he maintains, are somewhat limited in their extent 
and character by the sixth commandment, although 
they may be justified in the case of murder, unjust 
attacks, or defense of one's native land. 

After the detailed discussion of 'obedience' he 
takes up the Christian duty of 'prayer.' ^ This atti- 
tude is an evidence of piety, and the other great proof 
of faith. It is the gift of God himself, since it is he 
that kindles the zeal for it in us, and his fatherly rela- 
tion through Christ is justification for it in the faith- 
ful soul. "Christ is our mouthpiece, through whom 
we talk to the Father; our eye, through whom we 
see him ; our right hand, through whom we make 
offerings to him." ^ Hence it is the Father himself 
who inspires us to prayer, and gives us in his son the 
pledge of being heard. Prayer, therefore, is the ex- 

1 To this subject he devotes the third book of his Commentaries, 
just as the second was concerned with 'obedience to the divine law.' 
_»/^., Ill, 2, 208 ff. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 183 

pression and proof of Christian life, and in it penitence 
is revealed. As the new life is expressed in prayer, 
we are strengthened and advanced in the fight against 
our evil inclinations. It is, therefore, necessary to 
renew prayer daily and ask forgiveness for our sins, 
since continual and manifold temptations are con- 
stantly arising both from our misfortunes and our 
prosperity.^ He further makes a gradation in sins 
from the standpoint of heinousness and worthiness 
of punishment. The most unforgivable breach is 
the sin against the Holy Ghost, as in the case of the 
Pharisees that attributed the miracles of Jesus to 
demons. - 

The Lord's prayer Ramus holds to be a model 
for all conditions of life, and the treatise on prayer 
is clearly a detailed paraphrase and explanation of 
its several petitions. It is not necessar}^ to enter 
further into his discussion, but it is of interest to note 
the ingenious comparison that he makes between the 
ten commandments and the various petitions of the 
Lord's prayer. The second half of the prayer is 
shown to correspond in general to the second half of 
the decalogue. This analogy is not so much one that 
is strained after in an effort to attract and hold the 

1 Ibid., Ill, 8, 241 f. 2 Ibid., Ill, 9. 



184 PETER RAMUS 

attention of the reader, as it is intended to convince 
him that the Christian life, in fulfiUing the law, mani- 
fests itself as in harmony with the benefits for which 
we are bidden to ask.^ 

It can thus be seen that the Ramian ethics, like 
all treatises until the last half century, was essen- 
tially dogmatic, and shades off into what may be 
more properly called 'theology.' As a matter of 
fact, Ramus includes both subjects in a single work, 
his Four Books of Commentaries on the Christian 
Religion? The two middle books, which have been 
discussed, are really ethical and deal with ' obedience' 
and 'prayer,' but the first and last, upon 'faith' and 
'the sacraments' respectively, would come rather 
under the head of theology. Yet, as compared with 
the treatises of the times, especially those of the 
orthodox Catholic authorities, Ramus is not guided 
by dogmatism. He strives, like most of the reformed 
theologians, to deliver the subject from all the idle 

1 Ihid., Ill, 10, 249. 

* This treatise was begun in Switzerland and Germany in 1 568- 
1569, and the outline laid before the best known Protestant 
theologians. It was completed upon the return of Ramus to Paris, 
but was not published until four years after his death, when his 
pupil, Banosius, got out an edition at Frankfurt. See pp. 95 and 
96 {. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 185 

questions and various subtleties with which the 
scholastics had embarrassed it. He was disgusted 
with the unfruitful learning, formal attitude, and 
dissociation with life in the theology of the times, 
and struggled to advocate upright living rather than 
mere doctrine. He wished to make the Scriptures 
the supreme rule of faith, and continually expressed 
a wish for exact translations in both Latin and the 
vernacular,^ but he stressed the knowledge of re- 
vealed truths less than actually putting them into 
ejBfect. 

His practical point of view is first embodied in his 
definition of theology as 'the science of living well.' ^ 
He further specifies that "the final purpose of the 
science is not mere acquaintance with matters relat- 
ing to it, but use and practice," and that by 'well 
living' is meant "living in harmony and conformity 
with God, the source of all good things." This 
attitude in theology cannot but remind us again of 
the reproach of being 'utilitarian' made by his 
opponents,^ and of his definitions in the various 

^ Illustrations of this desire were found in his Advice to the King 
on the Reformation of the University and his letter to the Cardinal 
of Lorraine in 1570. See pp. 84 and 103. 

^Comm. de relig. Christ., I, i, 6. Cf. I, 25, 89. 

' See p. 57. 



1 86 PETER RAMUS 

liberal arts.^ Ramus himself says: "In the same 
way the liberal arts teach by their precepts to speak 
correctly, to make an effective speech, to reason well, 
to calculate well, and to measure well, respectively." 
Hence, since theology should be of practical value, 
he holds that it must not be filled with fine techni- 
calities, but should be intelligible and popular. 
"As I venerate and honor the mystery of sacred and 
divine things, so I desire all instruction relating to 
these matters to be free from the rocks and thorns of 
scholastic problems, and clear and distinct in the 
whole course of its exposition and treatment." - 
The Scriptures hold a rich and manifold content of 
divine revelation, prophecy, history, poetry, and 
song, which may be made of infinite value to the 
masses. This body of simple and inestimable truth 
was praised most highly by the Christian Fathers, 
but had been ignored and rejected by the scholastics. 
"Wherefore," Ramus declares, "I think that this 
recent darkness should be cast away as far as possi- 
ble and the ancient light brought back." ^ 

1 See pp. 124, 136, 148, 163, and 164. 

^ Comm. de. Relig. Christ., I, preface, p. i. 

^ Ibid., I, preface, pp. i f. Cf. ibid., IV, 18, 343: "Let us dis- 
miss the profane logomachies and empty talk ; let us speak the 
words of the Holy Scriptures, let us use the language of the Holy 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 187 

In order to restore this enlightenment, he proposes 
a twofold method. In the first place, the text he 
would make should be illustrated with suitable pas- 
sages from the Holy Scriptures. "We must act in 
divine matters," says he, ''not otherwise than ac- 
cording to the divine writings." ^ The Old Testa- 
ment must be used as well as the New. Together 
they form the rule for piety and offer the forgiveness 
of sins through Christ. In the Old, the covenant is 
promised ; in the New, it is granted. Both contain 
a revelation of God and have substantially the same 
content, although one is prophetic and veiled, and 
the other fulfilled and clear.- Secondly, Ramus 
would add to the text and sacred examples, passages 
taken from the greatest classical poets, orators, and 
historians. By this secular spicing of the religious 

Spirit. For that is the truest doctor of wisdom and the most 
renowned orator of eloquence, and it uses words that can be under- 
stood by us, — clear, significant, and suitable. For that will be to 
divide the truth rightly. Tlien let us not supplant divine wisdom 
and language with sophisms and folly." Similar is his continual 
suggestion of a return to the 'golden age' of primitive Christianity. 
See ibid., I, 6, 23 ; II, 9, 165 ; IV, 17, 338; IV, 18, 342 f. ; IV, 19, 
344, and 346 f. 

' Ibid., I, preface, p. 5. 

- See his comparison of the decalogue with the Lord's prayer, 
pp. 183 f. 



1 88 PETER RAMUS 

materials he believes that the attention of the reader 
can be attracted and stimulated, "not that any au- 
thority or approbation for religion can be derived from 
it, but that it may be clear Christian theology is 
not so abstruse or so remote from the human senses 
that it cannot illumine all people with a certain 
natural light, and so its very humanity may invite 
and allure men to engage in divine studies with eager- 
ness." ^ This use of classical authors by Ramus, 
which is not intended merely as a rhetorical illus- 
tration of Christian truth, but a general attempt to 
transmit its natural and supernatural revelation, is 
one of the most interesting and characteristic features 
of his theology. He constantly undertook to show 
the harmony of the loftiest representatives of classi- 
cal antiquity with Christian principles, to feel and 
point out in the pre-Christian world prophecies of 
Christianity, and to trace them up to the appearance 
of the Gospel, not only from Moses and Isaiah, but 
also from Plato and the academies of ancient philos- 
ophy. In this he illustrates the complete recon- 
ciliation of the Northern Renaissance with the 
Reformation, and reveals himself a typical humanist 
and a Protestant theologian. While he agrees in the 
1 Comm. de relig. Christ., preface, p. 2. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 89 

essentials with the evangelical principles of the other 
reformers, in his position toward classical antiquity 
he represents a peculiar breadth of view. 

Upon this basis Ramus organizes the material of 
his theolog}^ He holds that obscurity and confu- 
sion in this field have been due in no small measure 
to the fact that there are as many methods of divid- 
ing and arranging the subject as there are theologians. 
Each one feels fully entitled to his own vie^vpoint, 
instead of seeing that, as in any other science, there 
is only one correct method. He insists that there is 
a definite arrangement based upon general logical 
principles, and puts into effect his three laws of 
content ' and his classification by 'dichotomy.' - In 
accordance with this method, he divides the science 
into 'doctrine' and 'discipline.' The subdivisions 
of doctrine, in turn, concern 'faith' and 'works,' and 
the classes of 'works' are 'obedience' and 'prayer' 
on the one hand, and 'sacraments' on the other. 
'Obedience' and 'prayer,' which he deals with in 
books two and three respectively,^ relate more closely 
to his ethics and are treated under that head,* 
while ' sacraments ' belongs with ' faith ' to his dog- 

^ See pp. no fif. 2 See pp. 130, 139, 150, and 164. 

» See pp. 178 ff. '•Seep. 177. 



I go 



PETER EAMITS 



matics, and is treated in the fourth book. His second 
main division of ' discipHne ' falls into the subjects of 
'doctrinal practice' and "^ church polity.' This part 
of theology is not treated in his Commentaries, but 
we have other ways of knowing the position of Ramus 
in the matter.^ Meanwhile, the general outline of 
both the ' ethics ' and the ' theology ' proper included 
in his Commentaries, is shown in the following 
diagram. 

Theology (in- f r concerning faith 

eluding Christian doctrine concerning the works of faith ( oh<t^^nze and prayer 

Ethics), 'the art ■, ^ I sacraments 

of living well,' j discipline / doctrinal practice 

is divided into : I I church polity 

The first book of the Commentaries consists in an 
interpretation, somewhat scientific, but mostly popu- 
lar, of the Apostles' Creed. It is partly a paraphrase 
and partly an explanation of the articles, and is 
largely in keeping with Catholic doctrine. The first 
important theme is that of God's existence, character- 
istics, and works.-' God is an eternal, immortal, and 
beneficent spirit, and is incomprehensible to man save 
through his works. ^ First the treatise deals with his 
existence and nature, and then with creation, provi- 

' See pp. 99 S. '' See Chaps. 3-8. 

' This last is the reformed doctrine that was later known as via 

causalUatis. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 191 

deuce, and predestination, but between the chapters 
on creation and providence is inserted one upon the 
'fall of man.' The Ramian conception of God is 
Trinitarian,' although it is not treated as a dogma 
until toward the close of the book, when the doctrine 
of the Holy Ghost is discussed.^ Upon creation and 
providence Ramus presents nothing worthy of note ; 
he simply makes a collection of biblical and classical 
quotations without going closely into the kernel of 
these questions. His explanation of the ' fall of man ' 
and the consequences thereof is also superficial and 
rather brief. Our first parents, he holds, were for- 
getful of the wonderful benefits of the Creator and 
wished to be his equal, and thus threw away the great 
gifts they might otherwise have enjoyed forever. 
In place of an immortal body they thus obtained 
a mortal one subject to a thousand miseries, and, 
through the contagion of the original sin, they ac- 
quired a propensity to every sin, and polluted their 
entire posterity. 

Providence he treats more fully later on under 
'predestination.'- In comparison with the dogma 
of Calvin or even Zwingli, Ramus presents a very 
mild conception of 'predestination.' He viewed the 

1 I.e., I, 19, 72 ff. 2 15^ 24. Cf. also II, i, 27. 



192 PETER RAMUS 

problem from an ethical standpoint, while they 
regarded it purely in a logical light. Hence he can 
speak of it as "that act of God, whereby out of his 
free mercy he selects some for everlasting salvation 
and out of his justice relegates others to eternal per- 
dition." ' This position he supports by a number 
of Old and New Testament quotations, which furnish 
proof of both election and damnation, and more 
especially by the approval of Augustine in his Letter 
to Vincent and in his treatise On Predestination. 
Nevertheless, while he rejects every evidence of uni- 
versal salvation that appears in the Bible, he appar- 
ently does so to be consistent with his Calvinistic 
confession and does not show at all the conviction, 
zeal, and almost grewsome satisfaction that Calvin 
found in this resultant of his logic. ^ 

The second article of the creed, which concerns 
the person and work of Christ, Ramus interprets 
mainly in conformity with Catholic doctrine, as de- 
termined by the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. 
Now and then, however, characteristics of the 
Protestant point of view appear, and while he uses 
the traditional formulations, he clothes them with 

1 1, 8, 28. * See especially I, 8, 32. 

» See Chaps. 9-18. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 193 

biblical, rather than scholastic, concepts and terms. 
Another peculiarity of his treatment appears in the 
way he deals with the twofold nature of Christ. His 
humanity, he holds, is shown in his birth, sufferings, 
death, and burial, while his deity is revealed in his 
resurrection. In this way doctrines quite separate 
in orthodox dogmatics are connected. He also adds 
to the description in the creed an account of the 
human life of Christ, from birth to the passion,^ 
although he renders it largely nugatory by main- 
taining that Christ reveals his real self only in his 
divinity.^ 

But the especial contribution of Ramus is his 
treatment of the earthly mission of Christ, which, as 
we have noted, is closely related to and throws light 
upon, his person. His work is not brought under a 
definite scheme, nor subsumed under such concepts 
as 'reconciliation' or 'redemption,' but the author 
merely relates the history of Christ's passion. He 
comments upon the Jewish and Roman methods of 
capital punishment, discusses the time of the cruci- 
fixion, collects typical references from the Old Testa- 
ment and pagan analogies from the classical writers, 
and concludes with a most graphic description of the 

II, II, 43 f. *I, II, 45- 

o 



194 PETER RAMUS 

mourning of Nature over the death of the Savior.^ 
Similarly detailed descriptions are made of the resur- 
rection. He gives a minute account of the descent 
into hell/ and the ascent into heaven.'' This final 
abode of the righteous he depicts as a definite place, — 
'the highest part of the universe,' ^ and 'the seating 
at the right hand of God ' ^ is also locally conceived. 
The 'final judgment' is likewise described. While 
the whole narration is written in highly impassioned 
and rhetorical language, it is only now and then that 
dogmatism is displayed.*^ 

Next Ramus presents the third article of the creed, 
and interprets the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, the 
church universal, the communion of saints, the for- 
gi\Tness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and 
the life everlasting.^ He first cites typical passages 
where the Godhead and the personality of the Holy 
Ghost are described, and then names the specific 
attributes and activities of the final member of the 
Trinity. In his general attitude toward trinitari- 
anism, he appeals to the traditions and usages of 

II, 12, 46 ff. '1,14,55. 3 1^16, 62 f. 

^1,16,63. ^1,17,66. 

' Occasional examples are found, as in I, n, 46; I, 12, 50; and 

I, 14, 57 f- 

^ Chaps. 19-25. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 95 

the church and to the Athanasian Creed, and is 
very strongly orthodox.^ He also retains unmodified 
the doctrine of the church as the visible evidence 
of the invisible kingdom of God, — 'perceived by 
faith, although apparent to the eye of none.' - The 
characteristics of the church or kingdom, however, 
are developed according to the Apostles' Creed, and 
are but little more than a paraphrase of the words ^ 
used there. ' Holiness ' here below is only approxi- 
mate and imperfect, though real, since it is mediated 
through faith in Christ. Likewise, the Christian 
Church is 'Catholic' or universal. Where the Old 
Testament ' congregation of God ' referred to a defi- 
nite land and a peculiar people, Christianity aims to 
include all peoples and times, for it is a common 
bond in the Holy Ghost through the Gospel* 
It is thus the means of a 'communion of saints' 
or the redeemed. Further, since salvation is not self- 
made, but is granted by the grace of God through 
mediation upon the part of Christ, it comes about by 
the ' forgiveness of sins. ' ^ 
But his conception of the ' resurrection of the body' 

n,ig,6gS. 2121,79. 

'I.e., 'holy Catholic (or universal) Church.' 
* I, 22, 77 fiF. 5 1, 23, 83. 



196 I'ETER RAMUS 

Ramus takes from several of the old Church Fathers 
rather than from the Scriptures themselves. He in- 
terprets the risen body as not one of flesh, but of a 
heavenly nature, and implies that the Bible is using 
the language of symbolism. The 'life everlasting,' 
which he deals with in the last chapter of the book,^ 
is considered less as a specifically Christian hope of 
the future than as a general belief in our immortal 
nature. The eternity of punishment in hell is 
emphasized, but no purgatory is mentioned. 

The fourth book, discussing the 'sacraments,' is, 
as we should expect, much more dogmatic even than 
the first. It is more definite in its facts and more pre- 
cise in expression, and more nearly approaches the 
scholastic methods from which Ramus had broken. 
It is more strictly theological than his semi-popular 
treatment of the three articles of Christian faith. 
He begins with a general definition of the sacraments 
taken from the Old and New Testaments. He makes 
the sacraments analogous to military oaths, and in- 
clines more toward Zwingli than Luther in his posi- 
tions on the subject. "A sacrament," he says, "is 
an act of pubHc faith instituted by God for commemo- 
rating the death of Christ and participating in its 

^1,25. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 97 

fruitage through an objective sign and solemn rite 
of the Church." ^ He especially emphasizes the 
human side of the ceremony by further explaining : — 

" On the part of God it is a sign of divine grace and 
salvation ; on our part it is a sign of confession and 
duty, by which we publicly swear allegiance to the 
name and authority of God, and we profess a divine 
state of mutual charity among ourselves, a church, 
and a religion, so that by visible signs we make and 
swear to invisible and spiritual treaties." - 

The most complete illustrations of this general con- 
ception of a sacrament are baptism and holy com- 
munion.^ "Baptism is the sacrament by which, 
when once cleansed by water in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are initiated into a 
profession of being cleansed of our sins by the blood 
of Christ." * "The Lord's supper is the sacrament 
by which through the gracious acts of God we use 
the bread and wine for professing that we have been 
raised up into eternal life through the crucified body 
of Christ and his blood which was spilled for us." ^ 
In this conception of the eucharist, which he defends 



av, I, 257. 


» IV, 3, 264 f. 


»IV,S-7. 


* IV, 5,271. 


^ IV, 8, 284. 





1 98 PETER RAMUS 

at length, he diverges further from the orthodox views 
of ' transubstantiation ' than did either Calvin or 
Luther. He evidently comes closer to the Zwinglian 
idea of a 'commemoration' than to the mysticism 
of Calvin, which, on the one hand, teaches a conde- 
, scension of the divine powers of Christ into the com- 
municant through the Holy Spirit, and, on the other, 
affirms an elevation of the communicant to heaven. 
Nor is Luther's ' real presence ' of Christ, in rejection 
of which he makes seven counts,^ or any other form 
of 'consubstantiation,' acceptable to Ramus. 

Even a cursory examination of the organization of 
his 'theology' reveals the same procedure, with its 
merits and defects, that Ramus was found to employ 
in his formulation of the studies in the trivium 
and quadrivium. The presentation is clear, simple, 
and logical, but at times it seems forced upon the 
material and does not altogether grow out of the 
nature of the discussion. Subjects somewhat cognate 
are occasionally sundered by a too rigid pursuance of 
the schema. The doctrine of 'justification by faith,' - 
for example, is separated from 'remission of sins,' ^ 
and is explained later, while ' free will ' is quite irrele- 
vantly discussed in connection with this latter topic. 
1 See Chaps. 11-14. ^ II, i, 96. ^ I, 23, 83. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 1 99 

Yet the work is most remarkable for its clarity and 
its composition and style. It exhibits a wide range of 
scholarship restrained by a strong and simple logic. 
The argumentation on the sacraments is a marvel of 
strength and simplicity, when we consider the theol- 
ogy of the times. Also especially praiseworthy is the 
combination of active piety and broad charity with 
which the work rings. Most touching is that last 
chapter/ in which he makes his eloquent appeal for 
Christian unity, — an exhortation that had its 
hearing years after the author's voice was hushed 
by martyrdom. 

The second part of the Ramian theology is not 
given in his Commentaries, although the division is 
recognized there. His general position on several 
matters of doctrinal practice and church polity, 
however, appear in his various controversies, and we 
have rehable sources for judging of the attitude and 
opinions of Ramus in these matters,^ On the very 
question of the eucharist mentioned above, he had a 

av, 19. 

* There are extant three unpublished letters on these subjects 
to his friend, the Protestant theologian, BulHnger, whom he had 
consulted in shaping his views. Sec Lobstein, Ramus als Theologe, 
pp. 63 f., and Waddington, Ramus, sa vie, ses ecrits, et ses opinions, 
pp. 239-246. 



200 PETER RAMUS 

public contest with Beza, who, of course, held to the 
Calvinistic interpretation. The use of the words 
'substance' and 'substantial' he recognized as an 
effort to hold partially to tradition, and he charac- 
terized both terms as 'foolish and misleading.' ^ 

With regard to polity, it is obvious that Ramus 
advocated a more democratic government of the 
church than that practiced by the Calvinists. In 
open opposition to Beza, he urged that the Calvin- 
istic churches should grant more powers to the 
membership, and he objected strenuously to the in- 
creasing domination of the elders and the exclusion of 
the deacons from the administration, whereby the 
church was becoming decidedly oligarchic. These 
enlarged rights and privileges for the elders had been 
voted by the synod of the church held at La Rochelle 
in April, 1571, under the moderatorship of Beza. 
Propositions offered by Ramus as a protest against 
this aristocratic innovation were adopted in March, 
1572, at the provincial synod of Ile-de-France, but 
were rejected at the national synod of Nimes two 
months later. This assembly, like that at La Ro- 
chelle, was dominated by the influence of Beza, and 

• Haec utraque inanis et falsa videaiur. See Waddington, op. 
ciL, p. 434. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 20I 

decreed ^ that the "discipline of our church should 
remain in the future, as it has always been observed 
and practiced up to this day, without making the 
least change or innovation, since it is founded upon 
the word of God." And Beza in triumphant bigotry 
declares : — 

"That pseudo-dialectician, whom several scholars 
of old surnamed 'the branch ^ of Mars,' stirred up a 
very serious discussion concerning the whole gov- 
ernment of the church, which, he claimed, ought 
to be democratic, not aristocratic, leaving to the 
council of elders only the proposal of legislation. 
Wherefore, the synod at Nimes, in which I partici- 
pated, upon my advice condemned that view, which 
is most absurd and pernicious." ^ 

We find that Beza returned to the subject later,^ 
and seemed to fear that Ramus would not submit 
tamely, but would yet stir up dissension. But at 
this time the reformer's enemies had accumulated 
in sufficient numbers to prevent further disturbance 
of the theological strata, Catholic or Calvinist, and 

1 See Aymon, Actes ecclesiastiques et civiles de tous les synodes 
(La Haye, 1710), pp. 112 ff. 

2 A pun on the name, Ramus. 

^ Theological Letters (Geneva, 1573), No. 67. 
* See ibid., No. 68, 



202 PETER RAMUS 

within a few months the courageous theologian was 
no longer able to attempt any change in ecclesiastical 
'discipline.' 

Had Ramus lived longer, there is reason to believe 
that he would also have written upon the other pro- 
fessional subjects of medicine and law. We have 
already seen in his Advice on the Reformation of the 
University ^ that he had decided views upon these 
subjects, and that his emphasis upon civil law, which 
had been entirely abandoned at Paris, and upon labo- 
rator}^ and field work in medicine was decidedly mod- 
ern. While Ramus himself never studied medicine, 
and had read only a few works of Galen, ^ he recom- 
mended a logical arrangement of this subject, which 
he probably hoped to have similar to that he had 
adopted for the liberal arts and theology. This would 
undoubtedly have furnished a much clearer, more 
intelligible, and more humane presentation than that 
in vogue for medicine. Similarly, his knowledge of 
law was confined to passages in legal authorities that 
he had read to secure light upon the speeches of Cicero, 
but he ardently wished to see the subject reorganized, 
and had definite views as to the right method, which 

' See p. 83 f. 

^ See Schol. math., 1. II, and Nancel, Rami vita, p. 34. 



HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 203 

would probably have been similar to that used else- 
where. Witness his appeal to the noted men in this 
line at the time. "Among so many jurists," he asks 
rhetorically, "is there to be no one who mil under- 
take to clear up and simplify this chaos?" ^ His 
exhortation was afterward effective, and such logical 
principles as his came to be generally utilized in the 
organizing of law. 

Hence within the purview of this remarkable re- 
former fall all the theology and education of the 
times. He wished to rid Christianity of all scholastic 
and medieval agglomerations and bring it back to the 
simple belief and informal organization of the primi- 
tive days, and, in his efforts to accomplish this, did 
not hesitate to oppose both Mother Church and her 
Calvinistic daughter. His reconstruction of the mat- 
ter and method of education is quite as worthy of 
note, and eventually resulted in a new presentation of 
all studies in the secondary and higher curricula. 

J^ Schol. math., 1. II, near the end. 



CHAPTER IX 

Value, Spread, and Influence of Ramism 

Such were the contributions made by Ramus to 
the progress of civilization and education. The im- 
pulse out of which all these improvements developed 
was his persistent struggle against the servile attach- 
ment to Aristotle and scholasticism that had en- 
thralled the sixteenth century. It was because the 
implications of the medieval conception of the Aris- 
totelian logic underlay all the life and studies of the 
times that he found it necessary to oppose the Stagi- 
rite so vehemently, and that, in turn, his breach 
aroused so much passion and hostility. Hence the 
most fundamental and far-reaching contribution of 
Ramus was his aid to the emancipation of societ}^ 
from the bondage to medieval authority, and to 
the enfranchisement of truth and free investigation. 
Through him were secured some latitude in the field 
of knowledge and freedom from the ecclesiastical 
domination of reason. 

In turning his back upon the scholastic wisdom, 

204 



VALUE. SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM 205 

Ramus substituted for it a return to antiquity. In 
this he reveals his temperamental sympathy with 
northern humanism, and, although his Protestant 
inclinations did not materialize at first, the Reforma- 
tion attitude was innate in him and seems implied 
in his logic. He has all the merits and faults of hu- 
manism, and seems to have been largely influenced 
by the treatises of Agricola, Vives, Sturm, and 
Melanchthon. However, while he was, like all 
leaders of opinion, somewhat a product of the times, 
more than any other of his day he crystallized and 
shaped the vague and inchoate sentiments that were 
seeking expression. No other humanist was so ex- 
treme in his opposition to medieval and scholastic 
thought, or carried his principles into such radical 
execution. While building somewhat upon his 
predecessors and the advanced thought of the day, 
the reforms suggested for the organization, content, 
and method of education are found to have been quite 
reconstructed, systematized, and given their greatest 
advancement through him. 

This humanistic attitude of Ramus prepares us to 
find in him something of that overemphasis upon 
Latin and neglect of the vernacular that afterward 
plunged education into almost as fixed a mold 



2o6 PETER RAMUS 

as scholasticism. He takes even his educational 
principles and material mostly from the classical 
writers, although he is decidedly eclectic in his use of 
their thought. The basis of his reforms he borrows 
from Quintilian and Aristotle. From the one he se- 
cures his principle of making each art follow nature 
and of following the presentation of the art by prac- 
tice,^ and from the other his laws of truth, justice, and 
wisdom in arranging the content of the liberal arts." 
Likewise, he took most of his material in grammar 
from the usage of classical writers, although he did not 
recognize the absolute authority of Varro, Donatus, 
and Priscian ; his rhetoric he borrowed largely from 
Cicero and Quintilian ; in dialectic he used not only 
Cicero, but even the despised Aristotle ; while Euclid 
was his guide in mathematics ; and Pliny, Vergil, and 
Aristotle furnished most of the 'physics' he held 
should be taken from nature. 

Yet Ramus is unwilling to follow any author slav- 
ishly. He selects, in accordance with reason, the 
material that seems to be natural. While the classi- 
cal writers are the sources of his subject matter, he 
deals with each one critically and refuses to acknowl- 
edge authority. He estimates the value even of those 
I See pp. 1 16 ff . 2 See pp. no ff . 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM 207 

from whom he selects according to his fixed principles 
of subject matter. Whatever portion of a treatise 
does not conform to these laws he either reorganizes 
or entirely rejects. He eliminates from all the arts 
the foreign and false, he closely distinguishes the 
boundaries of each science, and he rearranges the 
content so that no repetitions occur. Hence we have 
seen that much which had the sanction of antiquity or 
the indorsement of medieval traditions was dropped 
from his reconstruction of the liberal arts and from his 
ethical and biblical formulation of theology. The re- 
sult was a great shortening of the course of study 
and a remarkable improvement over the faults of the 
scholastic texts and instruction, and even the short- 
comings of the classical works. This economy of 
time and effort, and increase in clearness, simplicity, 
and interest may have tended a little to dilute the 
material and separate related topics, and certainly 
subjected Ramus to the criticism of both the Pari- 
sian and German humanists on the ground of opening 
the door to superficiahty and a half-baked education. 
But his reformation in the content of the curriculum 
was, as a whole, decidedly in the interest of social 
progress and improved pedagogy. 

Of even more educational value was his develop- 



2o8 PETER RAMUS 

ment of method. He always advocates gradual prog- 
ress from the easy to the difficult, and fuses theory 
with practice in all studies. He does not heap up 
rules for the sake of ' discipline ' and thus make them 
an end in themselves, but recognizes that they are 
but the means to the true end of use. This is se- 
cured by practice in which there is a steady advance 
in independence for the student. Moreover, while 
the various liberal arts are taught in different years 
of the course, in each one, by means of his ' combined 
use,' practice is supposed to be afforded in all those 
that have been previously presented. 

In all this advance in material and procedure, 
while no definite aim is formulated. Ramus seems to 
have been guided by that underlying principle which 
is, after all, in every age the real purpose of education. 
His system implies an effort to produce 'social effi- 
ciency.' The content of this ideal must, of course, 
differ from age to age, as the society in which the pupil 
lives develops and changes, and the school practice 
is, from the force of inertia and habit, liable to be left 
behind. The true reformer is he who strives, whether 
consciously or not, to present a reconstruction of 
theory that will meet the needs of the times, and to 
insist upon its incorporation and realization in the 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OE RAMISM 209 

existing educational institutions. Ramus fully meets 
those tests. His reorganization of matter and refor- 
mulation of method were intended to meet the de- 
mands of the day for effective expression in writing 
and speaking, and for leadership through oratory 
and a mastery of Latin. If his methods of attaining 
these ends, especially in such ' real ' studies as mathe- 
matics and physics, now seem to us verbal and formal, 
we must not be guilty of the historical fallacy through 
neglecting to image the situation as it was then, nor 
forget the constant emphasis that Ramus laid upon 
'use,' even to the extent of being pilloried for utili- 
tarianism. His struggles to make these reforms 
effective and embody them in educational organiza- 
tion are witnessed not only in his specific orations 
upon this subject, but in practically every treatise or 
work that he wrote. Together with his constant 
effort to strike the shackles from the search for truth 
and to point the way toward a broader ethics and re- 
ligion, these strivings of a lifetime mark Ramus as a 
great reformer, — intellectual, social, religious, and 
educational. 

The ideas of Ramus spread rapidly throughout 
Europe. They were vigorously debated for a cen- 
tury or more by partisans and adversaries in all the 



2IO PETER RAMUS 

different countries, and made a tremendous impres- 
sion upon philosophic and educational thought. 
While eventually new doctrines replaced those of the 
French reformer, the intellectual situation was per- 
manently modified because of his teachings. Ramism 
had perhaps less influence in France than in Germany, 
but even there it found many ardent advocates. In 
depicting his life, we have touched upon much of 
the discussion and strife that were aroused over his 
teachings in his native land.^ The animus of the 
conservatives who defended Aristotle was evident 
and does not need repetition. At various French 
universities the Ramistic principles were soon pre- 
sented by various professors and met with wide 
adoption. At Paris the physicians, Fernel and De 
Gorris, and a large number in the faculty of arts 
supported the new doctrines; at Rheims, a former 
colleague of Ramus, the Greek scholar, Alexandre, 
continued the teachings he had acquired at Presles ; 
while Jean Bellon, a learned jurist, took up the cud- 
gels at Toulouse. The principles spread and met 
with a host of followers, who were ready to risk an 
indictment for heresy and the wrath of the Holy 
League.^ Even after the development of Cartesian- 

1 See pp. 31 ff. and 43 ff. ^ See p. 13. 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMLSM 211 

ism, we find the philosophy of Ramus frequently 
discussed, and as late as 165 1 it was the occasion of a 
serious controversy at Paris between a well-known 
historian and a professor in the College of France on 
the one hand and certain Jesuit scholars on the 
other. ^ While, with the complete rejection of all 
attempts at ecclesiastical reform and the domina- 
tion of the Jesuits in the seventeenth century, the 
educational reformation also vanished, Ramism 
left a definite impression upon French thought. 
In the suggestions of this sixteenth-century re- 
former must to some extent be sought the spiritual 
ancestry of Descartes, the Port Royalists, Gassendi, 
and Voltaire. 

In Spain and Portugal, Ramism was not well re- 
ceived. Yet the celebrated grammarian, Sanchez, 
taught the liberal arts according to the Ramian prin- 
ciples, and left definite traces of the new system in 
the University of Salamanca, the most flourishing in 
Spain. The philosophy of Ramus was bitterly op- 
posed, too, in all the universities of Italy, except 
Bologna, and most of its partisans felt obliged to with- 
draw from the country sooner or later. The most 
distinguished of all these was Simoni, who defended 

' See Cossart, Oratioties ei carmina, pp. 73 and 104. 



212 PETER RAMUS 

Ramism against the attacks of Carpentarius and 
Schegk. But we might perhaps consider as continu- 
ing the spirit of Ramism a number of later ItaHan 
writers, including the unfortunate Bruno, who dis- 
tinguished themselves by their attack upon Aristotle's 
philosophy. The Ramistic philosophy appeared also 
in Denmark, thanks to Krag, who taught it zealously 
and defended it in his writings. In the Low Countries 
it was early brought to Douai by Nancel, the loyal 
pupil of Ramus, and throughout these lands it found 
an untiring interpreter in Snellius. Nor could the 
new philosophy be kept out of the universities of 
Holland, and the authorities at Ley den were forced 
to admit it upon equal terms with the Aristotelian. 
In England it made little progress at Oxford, which 
was devoted to Aristotle, but Cambridge proved more 
hospitable. At the latter place, through the influence 
of Ascham and Sidney, who were friendly to Ramism, 
it was largely adopted. When it was attacked by the 
scholastic and mystic, Everard Digby, it was warmly 
defended by William Temple, Sr., who also helped to 
give it vogue. The discussion that arose may have 
been the means of starting the opposition of Bacon to 
all deductive systems, especially as Digby was prob- 
ably his tutor. However that may be, Ramism 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM 213 

survived and flourished. As late as 1672, the Uni- 
versity of Cambridge published the logic of Ramus 
with a commentary by Amesius, and the same year 
a more distinguished honor was done the system 
through the appearance of a Latin treatise by the poet 
Milton upon A More Complete Organization of the Art 
of Logic Arranged according to the System of Ramus} 
An even better footing was afforded Ramism in Scot- 
land, since the regent of the country, James Stuart, 
Count of Murray, had been a pupil of Ramus. 
Through George Buchanan, another friend, it is 
probable that the Ramistic philosophy was estab- 
lished at the University of St. Andrews. 

It was in Germany and Switzerland, however, that 
the principles of Ramus received the greatest atten- 
tion and exerted the widest influence. Despite the 
opposition of Beza, the new philosophy attracted a 
number of Genevan scholars, among whom was the 
martyr Arminius. Basel, Ziirich, Bern, Lausanne, 
and other cities of Switzerland received the new dia- 
lectic with even more favor, and Ramism was openly 
professed by men like Zwinger, Freigius, and Aretius. 
It was not a passing infatuation, either, for it is 

1 Joannis Miltoni Artis Logiaz Plenior Institutio ad Petri Rami 
Methodum Concinnaia. (London, 1672.) 



214 PETER RAMUS 

known that well into the eighteenth century it still 
existed in S\vitzerland. 

In Alsace the influence of Sturm accomplished a 
general spread of the Ramian doctrines, and at Strass- 
burg and Savern the German humanist v/as ably aided 
by several scholars. Freigius, who taught both at 
Freiburg and Altorf, as well as at Basel, Fabricius, 
rector of the University of Diisseldorf, and Chytraeus, 
rector at Rostock, also greatly aided in the dissemi- 
nation. A swarm of disciples openly avowed their 
convictions throughout Germany. The chair of 
philosophy at nearly all the other Protestant univer- 
sities, such as Gottingen, Helmstadt, Erfurt, Leipzig, 
Marburg, and Hannover, came to be occupied for a 
time by a Ramist. Leading philosophers, jurists, and 
theologians joined the cause. The Lutherans, how- 
ever, suspecting that the Ramian principles were 
in some way an outgrowth of Calvinism, made a 
propaganda of the dialectic of Melanchthon ^ in 
opposition, and prominent adversaries of Ramism 
arose at Tubingen, Altorf, Heidelberg, Wittenberg, 

' ' The Melanchthonian logic, which was in general use at German 
universities, was based on that of Aristotle, although somewhat 
improved and rhetorically written. While Melanchthon admitted 
that certain of Aristotle's writings had been lost, he would not 
concede that merely fragments were left, as Ramus claimed. 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM 215 

and other universities, and the contest waxed fast 
and furious. 

The controversy at the University of Leipzig be- 
tween 1576 and 1592, of which we possess a detailed 
account,^ is probably a fair type of what was gener- 
ally occurring at most of the institutions. Johannes 
Cramer, a master of standing at Leipzig, several times 
dean of the philosophical faculty and twice even 
rector of the university, was an ardent Ramist and 
challenged the professor of dialectic, who was ortho- 
dox in his philosophy, to a public debate. When, 
however, the theses of Cramer were sent to the dean, 
he condemned them as Ramistic, and declared the 
debate out of order. Cramer continued, however, 
both in public and private, to present Ramism to 
the youth of the university, and for a series of years 
was in a wrangle with one or another of his colleagues. 
An interdict against his lectures on the subject was 
issued b}' the faculty of philosophy and the rector 
without much effect, and, after examination of the 
notes of his students and the discovery of much hereti- 
cal logic, he was suspended from his chair. This led 
to a riot on the part of the students, and while it was 

1 Voigt, Ramismus an der Universitat Leipzig, in Leips. SSchs. 
gesell. der wiss. Berichte phil., 1881. 



2l6 ?ETKR RAMUS 

suppressed by the rector, the faculty was forced by 
pubhc sentiment to reinstate Cramer, after a pubHc 
statement that he had never intended to calumni- 
ate Aristotle or Melanchthon. However, he clearly 
continued to teach the Ramian doctrines, and the 
effects of this instruction were only too obvious when 
students were examined for their degree. In three 
cases they were allowed to graduate only upon prom- 
ising the faculty never to teach Ramism. More 
trouble was soon precipitated and Cramer was once 
more unseated, but this time the case was appealed 
to the elector. As this sovereign was getting along 
in years, he referred the matter to his progressive 
son, who, much to the chagrin of the conservative 
faculty, expressed his surprise that university 
instruction in philosophy should be limited to tra- 
ditional doctrines, and declared that only by free 
expression could any progress be made. He repri- 
manded the faculty for their attempt to dispossess a 
professor appointed by the sovereign, and demanded 
that Cramer be restored. After his rehabilitation 
half a dozen outbreaks against Cramer occurred, and 
both he and his supporters were as far as possible de- 
prived of ofi&cial recognition and constantly hounded 
by the faculty. Finally, in 1592, Cramer, worn out 



VALUE, SPREAD, AND INFLUENCE OF RAMISM 21 7 

with the controversy, resigned voluntarily and be- 
came the municipal physician for his native town. 
The faculty then were careful to see that his successor 
was not a Ramist. 

Similar contests over Ramism must have been go- 
ing on at the other universities. These seats of con- 
servatism were not quickly or easily aroused from 
their routine, as we have seen in the case of Ramus 
himself at Strassburg and Heidelberg.' Early in 
the seventeenth century Ramism was generally pro- 
scribed at the universities of Saxony, the Palatinate, 
and Bavaria, and the Ramists sought to compromise 
by combining their dialectic with that of Melanch- 
thon. A new school arose out of this union, — the 
so-called 'Philippo-Ramists,' which included such 
philosophers as Frisius, Buscher, Casmann, Kecker- 
mann, and Alstedt, the teacher and friend of Co- 
menius. But, like most compromises, this syn- 
cretism was unsatisfactory and led rather to the 
preservation of Aristotle than of Ramus. 

Yet the influence of Ramism cannot be regarded 
as entirely lost to philosophy or human intelligence, 
either in Germany or elsewhere. The authority of 
Aristotle was rudely shaken, and the way to free 

^ See pp. 96 f. 2 Cf. the Philippo-Ramian Grammar on p. 132. 



2lS PETER RAMUS 

thought was opened. Early in the next century 
came the work of Bacon, Descartes, and Comenius, 
and from them has grown that apostolic succession 
of modern thought, — Locke, Berkeley, Leibniz, 
Hume, Kant, and Hegel in the realm of speculation, 
and, in the reformation of education, Rousseau, 
Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Froebel. While Ramus and 
his philosophy cannot be interpreted as belonging to 
this awakened group, it was to some extent through 
his efforts that the transition was made from scho- 
lasticism to modern philosophy and education. He 
at least freed the human spirit from the dungeon of 
Aristotle, and drew it forth from the medieval twi- 
light. He improved all the literary and expression 
studies, and helped give mathematics and science a 
start. It seems fitting, therefore, to account Peter 
Ramus a leader in sixteenth-century reforms and in 
the progress toward modern civilization and enlight- 
enment. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. Primary Sources 

Banosius, T. Rami vita in Commentaria de religione Chris- 
tiana (Frankfurt, 1576). 

Carpentarius, J. Contra importunas Rami actiones (Paris, 
1566). 

Felibien, M, Hisloire de la ville de Paris. 

Freights, J. T. Commentaires de Ramus sur les discours de 
Ciceron (Bale, 1574). Preface on the Life of Ramus. 

Milton, J. Artis logicce plenior institutio (London, 1672). 

Nancel, N. de. Petri Rami Veromandui, eloquential et 
philosophice apud Parisios professoris regii vita (Paris, 

1599)- 
Ramus, P. Dialectics partitiones (sive Institutiones), 1543 ; 
Aristotelicm animadversiones, 1543; Tres Orationes a 
tribus liberalium disciplinarum professoribus, 1 544 ; 
Euclides, 1544; Oratio habita Lutetice in gymnasia 
Prcelleorum, 1545; S omnium Scipionis ex libro 6 Cice- 
ronis de Republica, 1546; Oratio de sludiis philosophic 
et eloquentice conjungendis, 1 546 ; Brutince qucestiones 
in Oratorem Ciceronis, 1547; RhetoriccB distinctioneSy 
1549; Platonis epistoloe latince facta, 1549; M. T. 
Ciceronis de fato liber, 1550; M. T. Ciceronis epistola 
nana ad P. Lentulum, 1550; Pro philosophica Parisien- 
sis AcademicB disciplina Oratio, 1551; Oratio initio 
219 



220 PETER RAMUS 

sucE professionis habiia, 1551 ; M. T. Ciceronis pro Caio 
Rahirio perduellionis reo or alio, 1551 ; PrSectiones in 
librum I Ciceronis de legibus, 1554; M. Tullii Ciceronis 
de lege agraria contra P. Servilium Rullum tribunum plebis 
orationes ires, 1552; M. Tullii Ciceronis in L. Catilinam 
Orationes IIII, 1553; ArithmeticcB libri tres, 1555; 
Dialectique, 1555; P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica, 1555; 
P. Virgilii Maronis Georgica, 1556; Dialecticce libri duo, 
y 1556; Audomari Talcei Admonitio ad Adrianum Turne- 
/ bum, 1556; M. T. Ciceronis de optimo genere oratorum 
prcefatio in contr arias Mschinis et Demosthenis orationes, 
1557; Ciceronianus. 1557; Marci Tulii Ciceronis fami- 
liarium epistolarum libri XVI, 1557; Or alio de legatione, 
1557; Liber de moribus veterum Gallorum, 1558; Libri 
de CcBsaris militia, 1559 ; Grammatics libri quattuor, 1559 ; 
Rudimenta grammalicce (latince), 1559; Scholce gram- 
maticcB, 1559; Grammatica grceca, 1560; Rudimenta 
grammaticce greecce, 1560; Gramere, 1562; Prooemium 
reformandcB Parisiensis academice, and Advertissements 
sur la reformation de Vuniversite de Paris, 1562; Oratio 
de professione liberal ium artiutn, 1563 ; Scholar urn physi- 
carmn libri octo, 1565; Scholar um metaphysicarum libri 
quattuordecim, 1566; Actioncs duce hahifce in senatu pro 
regia mathematlcce profession^ cathedra, 1566; Preface 
sur le Pro'eme des mathematiques , 1566; Prooemium 
mathematicum, 1567; La Remonstrance faite au conseil 
prive, i^t"] ; Audomari Talcei Rhetor ica, P. Rami prcelec- 
tionibus illustrata, 1567; Rector i et Academice Pari- 
siensi, 1568; Geometric libri septem et viginti, 1569; 
Scholm in liberates artes, 1 569 ; Scholarum mathemaii- 
carum libri unus et triginta, 1569; P. Rami et Jacvbi 



BIBLIOGR.\PHY 321 

Schecii Epistola, 1569; Defensio pro Aristotele adversus 
Jac. Schecium, 157 1 ; Basilea ad senatum populumque 
Basiliensetn, 1571 ; Tesiamentum, 1574; PrcBlectiones 
in Ciceronis orationes octo consular es, 1574; Commenta- 
riorum de religione Christiana libri quattuor, 1576; Pro- 
fessio regia, 1576; ColledanecB prcefationes, epistolcB, 
orationes, 1577 ; M. T. Ciceronis pro M. CI. Marcello 
oratio, 1582 ; In Ciceronis orationes et scripta nonnulla, 
1582; Arithmeticce libri duo et Algebra todidem, 1586; 
Aristotelis Politica, 1601 ; Epistolce varia. 

II. Secondary Sources 

Baillet, a. Jugements des Savans sur les principaux 

ouvrages des auteurs, Amsterdam, 1725. V, 125 f. ; VIII, 

204 f . 
Barni, J. R. Les Martyres de la libre pensee. Pp. 107-135. 
Bayle, p. Dictionnaire historique et critique, Rotterdam, 

1697. Ramus. 
Caraman, le duc de. Histoire des revolutions de la philoso- 

phie en France. Ill, pp. 245 fif. 
Crevier, J. B. Histoire de VUniversite de Paris, Paris, 1761. 

V and VI. 
Denifle, H., et Chatelain, IE. Chartularium universitatis 

Parisiensis, Paris, 1889-1897. 
Desmaze, C. a. Petrus Ramus, professeur au College de 

France, sa vie, ses ecrits, sa mort, Paris, 1864. 
Du BouLAY, N. Histoire de VUniversite de Paris. 
Gaillard, G. N. Histoire de Franqois I, Paris, 1766. VII 

and VIII. 
Guggenheim, M. Beitrdge zur Biographie des Petrus Ramus 



22 2 PETER RAMUS 

{Zeltschrijt Jiir Philosophie und PhilosopMsclie KrUik, 

Band 120, Heft 2, ss. 140-153), Leipzig, 1903. 
JouRDAiN, C. Histoire de VUniversite de Paris au XV 11^ et 

au XV 1 11" siecle, Paris, 1862-1866. 
Lantoine, H. Histoire de V enseignement secondaire en 

France au XVII" siecle, Paris, 1874. 
LoBSTEiN, P. Petrus Ramus als Theologe, Strassburg, 1878. 
Owen, J. The Skeptics of the French Renaissance^ London, 

1893. Chap. II. 
Prantl, K. von. Ueber P. Ramus (MUnchener Sitzungs- 

berichte, 1878). 
Saisset, E. E. Les precurseurs de Descartes, Paris, 1862. 
Schweitzer, A. Die Philosophic des Petrus Ramus (Erster 

Artikel, 10, of Die Entwickelung des Moralsystems in der 

Reformirten Kirche), Leipzig, 1850. 
VoiGT, G, Ueber den Ramismus an der Universitdi Leipzig 

{Berichte iiber die V erhandlungen der Gesellschaft der 

Wissenschaften, Band 99), Leipzig, 1887. 
Waddington, C. De Petri Rami vita, scriptis, philosophia, 

Paris, 1848. 
Waddington, C. Ramus, sa vie, ses ecrits, et ses opinions^ 

Paris, 1855. 
WiJRKERT, G. Die encyclopddie des Petrus Ramus, Ein 

Reformversuch der Gelehrtenschule des 16. Jahrhunderts, 

Leipzig, 1898. 



INDEX 



Abelard, i6. 

Academic, 52. 

Academy, Talon, 42. 

Advice on the Reformation of the Uni- 
versity of Paris, 78-84, 202. 

Agricola, 2, 17, 98, 142, 205. 

Aim of Ramus, 108. 

Albigenses, 7. 

Alexander of Villedieu, 16, 38, 121. 

Alexandre, Barthdlemy, 28, 210. 

Alstedt, 217. 

Altorf, 214. 

Amboise, Peace of, 86. 

Amesius, 213. 

'Analysis,' 117, 140, 165. 

Attimadversions on Aristotle, 30, 34, 
39. 59. 143- 

ApoUonius, 60. 

Archimedes, 43, 60, 61. 

Aretius, 213. 

Aristotelianism, g8. 

Aristotle, 16, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 64, 
72, 144, 169, 17s, 176, 206, 217. 

Arminius, 213. 

Ascham, 4, 61, 73, 212. 

Augsburg, q8. 

Bacon, 212, 218. 

Banosius, 19. 

Basel, 10, 94, 96, 213, 214. 

Bavaria, 217. 

Bellon, 210. 

Berkeley, 218. 

Bern, 213. 

Beza, lo, 74, 99, 103, 200, 201, 213. 

Bourbon, Charles of, 31, 104. 

Bourbons, 11, 12. 

Brahe, 99. 

Bruno, 212. 

Buchanan, George, 213. 

Budseus,4. 



Bullinger, 95. 
Buscher, 217. 

Calvin, 7, 10, 72, 95, 191, 198. 

Calvinism 11, 214. 

Cambridge, 4, 212, 213. 

Camerarius, 61. 

Carpentarius, 41, 45, 46, 63 f., 70, 88 ff,, 

104, 106, 212. 
Casmann, 217. 
Catherine de' Medici, 1 1 . 
Catherine Petit, 95. 
Catholics in France, 10 fit". 
Cayet, ig. 
Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, see 

Lorraine. 
Charles V, 8, 10. 
Charles IX, 11. 
Charpentier, see Carpentarius. 
Cheke, 4. 
Chytrseus, 214. 
Cicero, 17, 42, 43, 134. I3S. i57. 

206. 
Coccius, 95- 
Colet, 5, 6. 

Coligny, Admiral, 12, 13. 
College of Ave Maria, 28, 29, 59. 
College of Beauvais, 33. 
College of Boncour, 32, 45. 
College of Clermont, 87. 
College of France, 4, 13, 15, 40, 45, 

100, 104, 162. 
College of Mans, 27. 
College of Navarre, 16, 20, 27, 108. 
College of Presles, 13, 14, 39, 45, 47, 

85, 100, 104. 
College Royal, see College of France. 
Colloquy of Poissy, 10, 73, 100. 
Comenius, 217, 218. 
Commentaries on the Christian Religion, 

97, 184 fi. 



223 



224 



INDEX 



Committee of Seven, 69, 78. 

Cond6, Prince of, 12, 13, 70. 

Consonants, Ramist, 125. 

Cosel, Dampestre, 88. 

Cramer, 215 f. 

Curriculum in University of Paris, 

14 f. 
Cust, 19. 

De Disciplinis, 29. 

De Gorris, 210. 

De I'Hospital, 76. 

De Montuelle, 33. 

Demosthenes, 157. 

Descartes, 162, 211, 218. 

Despantere, 121. 

Dialectic, 17, 21, 29, 58, 141-159. 

'Dichotomy,' 130, 164. 

Digby, Everard, 212. 

Diplomatic missions of Ramus, 67 S. 

Disputation, 21 f., 29, 114. 

Doctrinale, 121. 

Dolet, Etienne, 18. 

Donatus, 6, 121, 123, 206. 

D'Ossat, 87. 

Douai, 212. 

Dream of Scipio, 40. 

Du Bellay, 44. 

Dubois, 18. 

Du Chastel, 33, 43. 

Edict of Francis against Ramus, 36. 

Edict of Nantes, 13. 

Edict of Toleration, 12, 76. 

Edward VI, 9. 

Elegancies of Latin, 121. 

Elizabeth, 9. 

Erasmus, 2, 4, 6, 7, 16, 115. 

Erfurt, 4, 214. 

' Esoteric,' 120. 

Ethics, 73. 

Ethics of Ramus, 173-184. 

Euclid, 38, 43, 59, 161, 165. 

'Exoteric,' 120. 

' Explanation,' 116, 117, n8, 140. 

Fabricius, 214. 
Ferdinand of Hapsburg, 9. 
Femel, a 10. 
Finfc, 18, 59. 



Forcadcl, 61. 

Francis I, 4, lo, 31, 34. 

Francis II, 11. 

Francis, Duke of Guise, see Guise. 

Frankfurt, 99. 

Frederick III, 97. 

Freiburg, 94, 214. 

Freigius, 19, 94, 213, 214. 

' French Plato,' 92. 

Frisius, 217. 

Froebel, 218. 

Galen, 17, 24, 43. 

Galland, 32, 3^, 41, 44, 45, 63, 70. 

Gassendi, 211. 

'Genesis,' 117, 140, 165. 

Geneva, 10, 99, 103. 

Gottingen, 214. 

Gov6a, 32, 33. 

Grammar, 57, 1 21-134. 

Grocyn, 4. 

Grynaeus, Samuel, 95. 

Guise, Duke of, 11, 77. 

Guises, 12, 13, 69, 71, 78, 88, 90. 

Gymnasien, 3. 

Hannover, 214 

Hegel, 218. 

Heidelberg, 4, 93, 96, 98, 214, 217. 

Heliogabalus, 117. 

Helmstadt, 214. 

Hennuyer, 27, 32. 

Henry II, 11, 41, 42, 49, 50. 

Henry III, 11. 

Henry IV, 13. 

Henry VIII, 7, g- 

Herbart, 218. 

Hervagius, 94. 

Hieronymians, 2. 

Hippocrates, 24, 43. 

Holy League, 13. 

Huguenots, 11, 105; of state, 12, 85; 

of religion, 12, 13. 
Humanism, i ff., 15, 98. 
Hume, 218. 
Huss, 7. 

Inaugural address, 48 ff. 
Institutes of Christianity, 10. 
Institutions of Dialectic, 30, 35, 58. 



INDEX 



225 



Jena, 4. 

Jesuit colleges, 3, 87. 

Jesuits, 211. 

Kant, 218. 
Keckermann, 217. 
Konigsberg, 4. 
Krag, 212. 

La Rochelle, 12, 200. 

Latin grammar school, 5. 

Lausanne, gg, 213. 

Law, 79, 82, 202. 

Laws of ' truth,' ' justice,' and ' wis- 
dom,' II f., 135, 163, 206. 

Lefevre, 6, 7, 18. 

Leibniz, 218. 

Leipzig, 4, 214, 215. 

Le Masson, 18. 

Lesage, 3g, 41. 

Ley den, 212. 

Linacre, 4. 

Locke, 218. 

Lorraine, Charles, Cardinal of, 11, 15, 
31, 41, 46, 49, 51, 74, 78, 100, 105. 

Loyola, 3. 

Luther, 6, 7, 72, iq6, 198. 

Lutherans, 214. 

' Maecenas,' 53 ff., 88. 

Marburg, 214. 

Margaret of Navarre, 10. 

Masters of university colleges, 16. 

Mathematics, 59, 88 f., 160-165. 

Medicine, 80, 82, 202. 

Meigret, 18. 

Melanchthon, 6, 113, 131, 134, i39. 

205, 214, 217. 
Metaphysics, 87. 
Methods, 21 ff., 56 f. 
Milton, 213. 
Montauban, 12. 
Montluc, Jean de, 105. 
More, 4. 

'Nature,' 109 f. 
Nicholas of Nancel, 19, 212. 
Nlmes, 12, 200. 
Niiremberg, 98. 



(Ecolampadius, 95. 
Organon, 23, 142. 
Oxford, 4, 212. 

Palatinate, 92, 96, 217. 

Pappus, 60. 

Parlement of Paris, 13, 33. 

Perion, 32, 43, 63. 

Peripatetics, 31, 37. 

Pestalozzi, 218. 

Petromackv, 44. 

Philip II, 9- 

Philippo-Ramian Grammar, 132. 

Philippo-Ramists, 217. 

Physics, 62, 168-172. 

Plato, 16, 17, 24, 27, 42. 

Platter, 94. 

Pliny, 169. 

Poles, the, 105. 

Port Royahsts, 211. 

'Practice,' 109, 114-118, 140. 

Principles of Ramus, 109-119, 206. 

Principles of ' system,' 110-113. 

Priscian, 16, 121, 123, 206. 

Proclus, 61. 

Pronunciation, 62 f., 125. 

Protestants, 10 ff., 72, 95. 

Quadrivium, 59, 120, 160-172. 
Quintilian, 18, 42, 43, 44, 134, 135, 
139, 206. 

Rabelais, 44. 
Reformation, 6, 8, 188. 
Renaissance, i, 2, 5, 8, 188. 
Republic, 39. 
Reuchlin, 2. 
Rheims, 210. 
Rheticus, 61. 
Rhetoric, 58, 134-141. 
Rostock, 214. 
Rousseau, 218. 
Royal lecturers, 16. 
Rue de Fouarre, 14. 

St. Bartholomew's Day, ma9»acr« of, 

13, 105. 
St. Denis, 90, 102. 
St. Germain, 67. 
St. Paul's School, 5. 



226 



INDEX 



.^aoichez, 2ii. 

Sapiens, 29. 

Savern, 214. 

Saxony, 217. 

Schegk, 96, 212. 

Schreckfuchs, 94. 

Serenus, 60. 

Sidney, 212. 

Simler, 95. 

Simoni, 211. 

Snellius, 212. 

Social eflSciency, 208. 

Socrates, 17, 24, 38. 

Sorbon, Robert, 14. 

Sorbonne, 14, 62, 125. 

Stoics, 17. 

Strassburg, 3, 93, 98, 214, 217. 

Stuart, James, 213. 

Studies in Dialectic, 21, 144. 

Studies in Physics, 168. 

Studies in the Liberal Arts, 17, 96. 

Sturm, 3, 6, 17, 29, 73, 93, 113,115, 

118, 161, 205, 214. 
Sulzer, 95. 
Syntax, 124, 128 f. 
'System,' 109, 110-114. 

Talon, 28, 38, 39, 40. 
Temple, William, 212. 
Theodosius, 60. 
Theology, 98, 184-202. 
Toulouse, 210. 
Tousan, 65. 



Tremellius, q6. 
Trivium, 57, 59, i^o-i^.j. 
Tiibingen, 4, 96, 214. 
Turnebus, 65 f., 70. 

University of Bologna, 93, 21 r. 
University of Dusseldorf, 214. 
University of Leipzig, 215-217. 
University of Paris, 3, 10, 13, 14, 2? 

36. 
University of St. Andrews, 213. 
University of Salamanca, 211. 
'Usuarius,' 57. 

Valla, 17, 142. 

Valence, Bishop of, 105. 
I Varro, 206. 

Vassy, massacre at, 12, 85. 

Vergil, 121, 169. 

Vives, 17, 113, 115, 118, 142, 205. 
I Voltaire, 211. 

Waldenses, 7, 10. 
Westphalia, 92. 
Wittenberg, 4, 214. 
Wolf, 94. 
Wolsey, 4, 
Wyclif, 7. 

Ziirich, 213. 
Zwinger, 94, 98, 213. 
Zwingli, 7, 72, 191, 196, 198. 



'T^HE following pages contain advertisements of 
books by the same author or on kindred subje6ts. 



Great Educators of Three Centuries 

By frank PIERREPONT GRAVES, Ph.D. 

Professor of the History of Education in the 
Ohio State University 

This book furnishes a popular account of the hfe and work of 
the men who, during the past three centuries, have introduced 
various innovations and reforms into modern education. While 
the facts of biography are narrated somewhat at length, an effort 
has been made to eliminate everything that does not have some 
bearing upon the contributions of the educator under consideration. 

" As history is largely a matter of biography, and as institutions are usually 
the lengthened shadow of a man, so the historic trend of education can be 
indicated well enough for the casual reader by an intelligent summary of the 
work of a few great educators, together with comments on the tendencies and 
interrelations of that work. Professor Graves has gotten up such a summary 
in his brief volume, in which he has judiciously selected and clearly stated his 
facts. His comments on these facts are illumination and his comments would 
seem to be well founded." — Boston Evening Transcript. 

"The thoroughly painstaking method of Professor Graves is evident on 
every page of these splendidly written books. A scientific and scholarly atti- 
tude combined with common-sense makes these by all odds the most practical 
text-books yet published in this field." — President W. G. Clippinger, of 
Otterbein University. 

"The social settings, dialectic methods, and ultimate achievements of 
nearly a score of illustrious world reformers are here brilliantly outlined." — 
The Philadelphia North Atnerican. 

" Some of those who are complaining about present-day teaching have not 
the slightest notion of the origins of modern practice. . . . Partisans in 
either camp will do well to read Professor Graves's new book, which should 
help the layman to understand contemporary educational aims and practices." 
— Professor M. V. O'Shea in The Dial. 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

PubliBhers 64-66 Fifth Avenue Hew Tork 



By WILLIAM HAWLEY SMITH 

M the Children of All the People 

A Sttjdy of the Attempt to Educate Everybody 

Cloi/i /2mo 306 pages Index $-r.Jo net ; by mail, $1,6 J 

The task of trying to educate everybody which our public 
schools are attempting to perform, has proved far more diffi- 
cult than the originators of the system deemed it would be 
when they set out upon the undertaking. The author gives 
this problem careful study and consideration and his book 
will prove an invaluable help toward its successful solution. 

By frank LOUIS SOLDAN 

Late Superintendent of Schools, St. Louis, Mo. 

The Century and the School 

AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL ESSAYS 

Cloth i2mo %i.25 net; by mail, $1.33 

The essays brought together in this volume were selected 
by a group of the late Superintendent Soldan's intimate asso- 
ciates. The titles are : The Century and the School ; Mo- 
rality and Education ; What is a Fad t ; Teachers' Duties ; 
Educational Ideas in Dickens' Novels ; A Visit to German 
Schools; Reading in the Higher Grades; Folklore and 
Fairy Tales. 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 



SEP 19 1912 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 347 027 9 



